CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › You must respect all religions and beliefs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

You must respect all religions and beliefs - Page 3

post #101 of 132
10/28/08 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alanthar View Post
there is nothing wrong with having a philsophical/theological discussion, its when one person decides what he thinks is more right then any other thought, that we enter the realm of the stupid
in that case this board are brain dead
Reply
post #102 of 132
10/28/08 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenin View Post
You are just Jealous he got a women with no uterus, and lot more money then you do!

He just a man on a mission to make a boat load of money. People are sheep and wish to be sheared.

I know why he offend me, he whoring my belief system, but why does he offend you? If I was an atheist I would be doing what he is doing.
What a tool this guy is.
Reply
post #103 of 132
10/28/08 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
I think it's clear that the ideas would be out there. There would be arguments against gay marriage and abortion, and some of them would even be based in reason. But I'm saying that religion (Christianity for us) has given people added incentive to transform these ideas into laws. Probably enough added incentive to tip the balance, so that we can say without it the laws wouldn't exist.
I would say that the arguments against gays is in spite of the New Testament. The fundies would have the world believe that Paul hated women, when in fact he was the start of women have equality. Jesus and Paul were the first egalitarians. Homosexuality may be a sin, but it is no worse a sin the eating the wrong foods, which Paul did all the time. Paul even says this more then once.


Sexual Immorality
1 Corinthians 6:12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.
Reply
post #104 of 132
10/28/08 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alanthar View Post
i can't say when it comes to the US

but up here in Canada, i don't see a lot of influnce of church over state.

we do have our 'lobby' groups for sure, but the political landscape never really strays into what religion a politician believes in.
in Europe most nations have a state church, like England. That is what separation of church and state is about.
Reply
post #105 of 132
10/28/08 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ED209 View Post
What a tool this guy is.
Answer a foolish question with a foolish answer. devincf is say either that this man Isaac was sincere in his beliefs or a charlatan, and all religious believe systems are equally that why. Were my point is if you have no belief in God why not make money off of people beliefs in God. It can't hurt you, and it not like God is going to hold it against you. Most people have a need religion belief systems and order, why not provide said services? It can't be any less immoral then say the movie business.
Reply
post #106 of 132
10/28/08 at 4:17pm
I notice the address is London.

I apologise on behalf of my country.
Reply
post #107 of 132
10/28/08 at 4:43pm
World is full of crazys.
Reply
post #108 of 132
10/28/08 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenin View Post
in Europe most nations have a state church, like England.
No.
Reply
post #109 of 132
10/28/08 at 5:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
No.
when the Constitution was written it was so, read your history.
Reply
post #110 of 132
10/28/08 at 5:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenin View Post
when the Constitution was written it was so, read your history.
I was rather referring to the fact that I think only Danmark and Norway have a State Church" in there constitutions as well as England. Oh, and Liechtenstein as well. Most others, like France and Germany, don´t.

So still no. Not most European countries.
Reply
post #111 of 132
10/28/08 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
I was rather referring to the fact that I think only Danmark and Norway have a State Church" in there constitutions as well as England. Oh, and Liechtenstein as well. Most others, like France and Germany, don´t.

So still no. Not most European countries.
Most of the modern European countries were not in existence when the US Constitution was signed. Germany, Italy, the whole eastern block, Spain, and France did not exist when the US Constitution, came in to being, the French Revolution happen after the US Constitution was ratified.
Reply
post #112 of 132
10/28/08 at 5:33pm
That is completely true. No argument then there. I guess I was confused about "in Europe most nations have".
Reply
post #113 of 132
10/29/08 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
Wait...how can you have a kid without a uterus...there's so much confusion in that poster...

I 'think' you'll find a kid without a uterus is called 'a boy'...but that might just be the librul media affecting me.
Reply
post #114 of 132
10/29/08 at 4:12pm
No, it's talking about a woman without a uterus having a baby...
Reply
post #115 of 132
10/29/08 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreary louse View Post
No, it's talking about a woman without a uterus having a baby...
I can't believe I'm posting this, but a woman without a uterus is a man...kind of.

Quote:
Question :

Is it possible for a female to have no uterus or ovaries? If so, what causes this condition, and how is it that she is able to have normal breasts and other feminine features?

S.
Answer :

Many conditions may result in the situation you report. The most likely is one called androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which the body is programmed to develop into a male, but something happens to prevent that from happening properly.

In this condition, the gonads (the organs that would become either ovaries or testicles) form and produce high levels of the male hormone testosterone, which would normally trigger male development -- but the body cells are unable to respond to the male hormones. Without a signal to trigger the development of male characteristics, the body develops into a female form. Meanwhile, the gonads -- which are still operating as though the body is male -- also produce a substance called Mullerian inhibiting factor that blocks formation of a uterus.

As the uterus and upper vagina do not form normally in this case, the gonads "get confused." Instead of becoming ovaries, they develop into abnormal testicles. With careful searching, these abnormal gonads can often be found in the abdomen.

Women with this condition are generally taller than their peers and have less body hair. This condition is diagnosed by measuring testosterone levels and checking chromosomes for the presence of a 46XY (male) chromosomal pattern.

If in fact this is the condition responsible in the case you're describing, the woman's physician will recommend removing any gonadal tissue that is present. In later life, these inappropriately formed gonads are at higher risk for developing cancer.
Here's the link, in case, you know, you wanted to check my source.
Reply
post #116 of 132
10/29/08 at 8:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alanthar View Post
i can't say when it comes to the US

but up here in Canada, i don't see a lot of influnce of church over state.

we do have our 'lobby' groups for sure, but the political landscape never really strays into what religion a politician believes in.
I can't believe anything other than Harper's evangelism led him to tell immigrants in Calgary that allowing gays to marry would mean said immigrants won't be able to practice their religion. After losing that battle but winning the next, he tried to relegate gay people to second-class citizens by crying about how gay marriage wasn't made legal in 'the right way' by the Liberals.

Before that, I would have agreed with you. I have no idea what my candidates' religions are, and I don't care.
Reply
post #117 of 132
10/29/08 at 10:18pm
wow
i missed those harpers comments....

which i think is a nice little commentary on the media/state relationship. I hate most of the newspapers in this country.
Reply
post #118 of 132
11/2/08 at 1:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alanthar View Post
when one person decides what he thinks is more right then any other thought, that we enter the realm of the stupid
How is it possible to have a philosophical conversation with someone who doesn't think he's right? Such an interlocutor would merely be wanking.
Reply
post #119 of 132
11/2/08 at 2:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Tip toeing around stupidity is retarded.
Devin, with all due respect, were you sober when you wrote this, or do you simply have limited experience in dealing with stupid people?
Reply
post #120 of 132
11/2/08 at 10:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenin View Post
in that case this board are brain dead
this...are...braindead...? This cannot be a serious post[s].

Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD
Isn't that kind of the problem with an omnipotent God? You really can't dismiss it. You can make it progressively more implausible, but it can't be dismissed, because there is always enough room on the margins.
This is the problem with any god and/or religious belief system. They aren't falsifiable by nature. If something is falsifiable, such as the purported 6k-year age of the Earth and all its species', this can be avoided by further claims that are not falsifiable (testing faith, etc.) or else written off as metaphor.

But the central tenet, that invisible teapot, unicorn, leprechaun, fairy, God, or what have you? Yeah, of course those are not falsifiable. Falsifiable claims are mainly the realm of science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
How is it possible to have a philosophical conversation with someone who doesn't think he's right? Such an interlocutor would merely be wanking.
He'd be wanking, and everyone else would be stupid, apparently.
Reply
post #121 of 132
11/3/08 at 10:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti View Post
How is it possible to have a philosophical conversation with someone who doesn't think he's right? Such an interlocutor would merely be wanking.
thats not what i meant. one has to have a certain amount of conviction, but still be open to other possibilitys
Reply
post #122 of 132
11/3/08 at 11:42pm
Holy shit this is stupid...

Reply
post #123 of 132
11/8/08 at 1:21pm
Yeah, right.

I think it's funny that if you'd claim that God himself spoke to you through your breakfast and gave you an eleventh commandment for mankind, even the most hardcore catholics raise an eyebrow and say "yeah, right."

Yet all of them believe some other guys somewhere else once heard the actual voice of God. Now what makes me less believable? Good teeth? Modern age clothes?
Reply
post #124 of 132
11/9/08 at 1:34am
Chris, have you ever studied Biblical history?
Reply
post #125 of 132
11/9/08 at 9:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheShadows View Post
Holy shit this is stupid...
Welcome to Alaska.
Reply
post #126 of 132
1/7/09 at 6:54pm
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...thiest.bus.cnn
Reply
post #127 of 132
1/8/09 at 11:02am
Five minutes of tolerance later:
Reply
post #128 of 132
1/9/09 at 6:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti View Post
How is it possible to have a philosophical conversation with someone who doesn't think he's right? Such an interlocutor would merely be wanking.
Socrates must have been a world champion wanker.
Reply
post #129 of 132
1/9/09 at 8:40pm
Jesse for the win!
Reply
post #130 of 132
1/10/09 at 1:41am
Socrates thougth he was right all the time, he just pretended he didn't, the snake.
Reply
post #131 of 132
1/16/09 at 4:07pm
Why does that atheist campaign say "There's probably no God"? That's awfully agnostic (AKA wishy washy). No conviction?
Reply
post #132 of 132
1/16/09 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
Why does that atheist campaign say "There's probably no God"? That's awfully agnostic (AKA wishy washy). No conviction?
The "probably" is what makes it good. It's supposed to let the reader know that it's not about conviction, not about beliefs.

Agnostic would be "We can't know whether there's a God." This campaign, with its "probably," is trying not to say anything about whether we know or can know definitively.

We don't know for certain right now, (and we don't know if we ever can) and that's what this campaign is saying. Then it's going one step further and injecting its opinion that the chance is under 50%, which, when you think about like that, doesn't seem too crazy. But the important thing is not that opinion, it's the "probably."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religion A-Z
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › You must respect all religions and beliefs