Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
God is a dick. He punishes everyone, whether they were responsible or not.
He really isn't a dick, but are entitled to an opinion.
All people are evil. Not one is beyond judgment unless you repent and let Jesus take your place for judgment.
Why should I let someone who has allowed genocide to happen where he had the power to stop it sit in judgement over me? What has God ever done to earn such a right?
Actually, I am betting that if 90-95% of humans had that power, the world would be a much better place. And no one would be tortured infinitely for finite crimes they were entrapped into.
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
I like how a human, with the little knowledge that we possess, can determine what a god can or can't do.
That's quite easy and has been done.
Can god make something so heavy, that he can't lift it?
Can god die?
Is he dead?
No.
No.
No.
Actually, you just proved his point. Ninjaed,
Quick question, if god controls all the rules of the game, and one of the rules is that if you X you get tortured forever, why wouldn't he change the rule to if you do X I don't really care, because unconditional love?
Anyway, getting back on topic, everyone has different interpretations and if we let them all run amok in the public sphere we wouldn't really be a secular state. And if you don't want to live in a secular state, I hear saudi arabia is lovely this time of year.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/29 15:14:59
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
A transgender teen in Michigan is using her growing online popularity to raise awareness for the LGBTQ community.
Last year, 14-year-old Corey Maison received her first estrogen prescription from her mom in a video that went viral online. Maison endured years of bullying at school before fully embracing her gender identity as a teen.
To commemorate Maison's transition, her mom arranged a photo session with New Jersey-based photographer Meg Bitton in December.
A few weeks ago, North Carolina passed their controversial "bathroom bill" aimed at keeping transgender individuals from using the bathrooms intended for the gender they identify as. Maison says the bill is an attack on basic human rights.
"I feel transgender rights are not about gender identity, but about equal rights for ALL human beings," Maison wrote to A Plus. "We aren't aliens, we are PEOPLE and deserve the same rights as everyone else. I shouldn't have to use a family or special 'staff' bathroom to exclude me or single me out more than I already am and put an even bigger target on my back. I should be allowed to use the bathroom I feel most comfortable in, just like everyone else is allowed to do."
Her mother and Bitton decided to share the photograph on Facebook to show that North Carolina's law is putting transgender kids like Maison in danger.
"If this was YOUR daughter, would you be comfortable sending her into a men's bathroom? Neither would I," Bitton wrote on Facebook. "Be fair. Be kind. Be empathetic. Treat others how you would like to be treated."
Bitton's message seems to echo a common sentiment from supporters of the bathroom bill, who say they feel uncomfortable sending their cisgender daughters into bathrooms with transgender women. Powerfully, she turns the argument on its head to promote tolerance and advocate for the personal safety of girls like Maison — girls the bill's supporters appear to have forgotten.
The Facebook photo received over 21,000 shares in a single day. Many people thanked Maison and Bitton for bravely putting a face to this issue.
"The public reaction has been both positive and negative, thankfully MORE positive than negative," Maison wrote to A Plus. "People are just using fear mongering and religion to disguise their bigotry and hate. All of the messages I have received have been 100 percent positive and of support. People are telling me how brave I am for sharing my story and thanking me for having the courage to share it."
Any attempts to allow religious privileges that are not universal lead to a violation of the separation of church and state doctrine. And if universal privileges are given out and they only reflect one religion's or a group of religions' tenets, than that would also be a violation. The only logical conclusions would be to either not give any religious privileges or to give out all religious privileges for every religion, including the more violent ones. So, since I feel better not getting decapitated legally for being a heathen, I suggest we avoid allowing religious people more rights than the rest of us.
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
Kilkrazy wrote: Please stick to the topic or I shall be forced to start handing out Spam notices.
The topic isn't the existence of God or his powers.
It kind of is though, when it comes to religious freedom laws and the right to practice your religion. As we learned from the flying speghetti monster thread recently, if you can show the religion to be a parody, or made up, or that they're not really worshiping anything, then their religious beliefs can be simply dismissed outright.
Kilkrazy wrote: Please stick to the topic or I shall be forced to start handing out Spam notices.
The topic isn't the existence of God or his powers.
It kind of is though, when it comes to religious freedom laws and the right to practice your religion. As we learned from the flying speghetti monster thread recently, if you can show the religion to be a parody, or made up, or that they're not really worshiping anything, then their religious beliefs can be simply dismissed outright.
How dare you insult his noodly lordship! Do you not feel his noodly appendages within your soul? My worship of his noodliness is just as valid as any other religion. The government cannot decide what religions are genuine or fake without showing favoritism.
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
People are talking about Christianity, a religion over 2,000 years old with 1.5 billion members, not Pastafarianism, and they are arguing about the omniscience of God not how religious belief should be acccomodated in society.
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.
Jim Crow laws were laws. It was institutionalized state sponsored racism. State laws forbid businesses from allowing customers of different races to intermingle. It wasn't possible for businesses to choose not to racially descriminate because the law required them to descriminate.
Once Jim Crow laws were repealed businesses, schools, etc. were able to be inclusive and not descriminatory.
In principle, the laws governing Protected Classes are just as oppressive on businesses as the Jim Crow segregation laws were. Instead of the state forbidding businesses to serve nonwhites the state no requires businesses to serve nonwhites. In both instances the govt is forcing private businesses to serve customers the state chooses without giving the private business the ability to choose their own customers.
We are getting more into the age of each person being "their own special snowflake".
In the past, resources were tight so people were pigeon-holed out of convenience so statements like "that is how it is" or "that is your job" get bandied about.
Doctors have to follow the "Hippocratic Oath" which BTW the original oath specifically states not to perform abortion so that already gets strange not even getting into separate religious beliefs. Personally I think abortion should be allowed but should be on a volunteer basis for physicians... I can see the "do no harm" being taken seriously in those circles.
One washroom (all people, all genders) with stalls from the floor to ceiling would be reasonable.
I keep hearing in the news phones sneaking out from under the divide... creepy stuff.
Many bylaws are probably determining how the washrooms are divided perpetuating the "classic" design.
A marriage between two people with all the rights that entails is slowly getting traction.
We are far past banning marriage, so allowing a formal partnership between people is about the only fair way to go.
The sooner we get the state to a gender neutral view of "people" in law the better.
One way or another, people do sometimes want/need the marriage to pool resources to raise children and all the rights by law that entails.
It does not matter your gender or orientation status, it is the act of raising children.
Marriage as a general commitment and bond should still be respected for the pooling of resources and entitlement to the partner when the other passes.
What would be an interesting question: say a job would require certain duties that would go against certain religious beliefs.
Would it be correct for a company to not consider an applicant if they are unable to perform those duties because of the religious beliefs?
Or would they be required to provide some accommodations if the majority of the duties can be performed?
The employer has the right to choose what duties are required for a position.
A person has the right to choose what actions they will or will not perform.
The Burka is a great divider for the general population.
Here we are all concerned about security and being identified and then there are people who insist on wearing clothing that hides every portion of who they are.
If we get into hand-held eye identification methods it might work out then.
All this caused by a rather strong view of "modesty" where the female face is considered a sexual object.
If the men wore veils as well, I would have less of an issue oddly.
I dunno... we use this forum to loudly proclaim our beliefs and then say "like it or lump it"?
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.
Jim Crow laws were laws. It was institutionalized state sponsored racism. State laws forbid businesses from allowing customers of different races to intermingle. It wasn't possible for businesses to choose not to racially descriminate because the law required them to descriminate.
Once Jim Crow laws were repealed businesses, schools, etc. were able to be inclusive and not descriminatory.
In principle, the laws governing Protected Classes are just as oppressive on businesses as the Jim Crow segregation laws were. Instead of the state forbidding businesses to serve nonwhites the state no requires businesses to serve nonwhites. In both instances the govt is forcing private businesses to serve customers the state chooses without giving the private business the ability to choose their own customers.
Personally I think it's fine to "oppress" businesses to not unfairly discriminate against people. It's part of what liberal government is for, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
The question is what is fair or unfair discrimination?
Kilkrazy wrote: People are talking about Christianity, a religion over 2,000 years old with 1.5 billion members, not Pastafarianism, and they are arguing about the omniscience of God not how religious belief should be acccomodated in society.
Right, the religion was made up by humans 2000 years ago. Adam & eve were not christians, they couldn't be jews, they weren't even real people for that matter, they were just a metaphor. So any religions based on them are just man made parodies, no different than pastafarianism.
So with that in mind, none of their beliefs should be accommodated in society, especially in a secular society.
First, you can't have parody's without sincere examples. The only way to have a parody religion is to admit the existence of sincere religions.
Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean you can just decide that thousands of years and billions of people are all just deluded, and there are no sincere religious beliefs.
Polonius wrote: First, you can't have parody's without sincere examples. The only way to have a parody religion is to admit the existence of sincere religions.
Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean you can just decide that thousands of years and billions of people are all just deluded, and there are no sincere religious beliefs.
At the same time, you cannot say that one group has sincere religious beliefs and turn around and say another does not. We either have freedom of religion or we do not.
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.
Jim Crow laws were laws. It was institutionalized state sponsored racism. State laws forbid businesses from allowing customers of different races to intermingle. It wasn't possible for businesses to choose not to racially descriminate because the law required them to descriminate.
Once Jim Crow laws were repealed businesses, schools, etc. were able to be inclusive and not descriminatory.
In principle, the laws governing Protected Classes are just as oppressive on businesses as the Jim Crow segregation laws were. Instead of the state forbidding businesses to serve nonwhites the state no requires businesses to serve nonwhites. In both instances the govt is forcing private businesses to serve customers the state chooses without giving the private business the ability to choose their own customers.
Personally I think it's fine to "oppress" businesses to not unfairly discriminate against people. It's part of what liberal government is for, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
The question is what is fair or unfair discrimination?
It's fair to let private businesses chooser their own customer base. If an underserved segment of the population is created by private businesses not wanting to do business with those people then that creates a demand for new businesses to be created to profit from engaging in commerce with the underserved people.
There is no tyranny of the majority in this instance. Individuals who own a business aren't a majority, they're the most important minority, the individual. If there was collusion or monopolies in play that would be different and other laws, that work to oppose collusion and monopolies would come into play.
The govt can't force people to start a business, can't force people to choose what kind of business they start and shouldn't be allowed to force people to serve customers they don't want to serve.
Fairness is a subjective value. There is no one true objective value of what is fair so it is wrong for the govt to use their authority and monopoly of force to oppress people to conform to a certain version of "fairness." The purpose of govt isn't to somehow save people from themselves. People are free to make their own decisions about their own lives and businesses. It is not the govt's job to make sure every private business is run well or fairly. Business owners are free to make bad decisions, cost themselves business and fail. Youre allowed to be stupid and wrong.
The legal right to choose your own customers doesn't mean that every business or even a majority of businesses would change how they operate or what type of customers they're willing to serve. Successful businesses aren't going to suddenly unveil descriminatory practices to reduce their customer base and profits just because the law says they can. It's still a choice. How many businesses would make the choice to be exclsionary? What evidence is there that the number of such businesses would be great enough to effectively prohibit certain segments of the population from obtaining commonly available goods and services?
The law already allows religious leaders to descriminate on the grounds of religion. You can't force a Catholic priest to marry a Jewish couple. You can't force a Baptist minister to marry an atheist couple. The law allows them to only officiate weddings that comply with the tenets of their religion. The state doesn't require rabbis and ministers and monks to prove that their religious beliefs are valid or worthwhile, their religious conviction is taken at face value and they aren't forced to violate those convictions. Why should the state not treat everyone in the same manner when it comes to religious ceremonies such as weddings? Participation in such ceremonies should always be voluntary.
Polonius wrote: First, you can't have parody's without sincere examples. The only way to have a parody religion is to admit the existence of sincere religions.
Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean you can just decide that thousands of years and billions of people are all just deluded, and there are no sincere religious beliefs.
At the same time, you cannot say that one group has sincere religious beliefs and turn around and say another does not. We either have freedom of religion or we do not.
Like the county clerk who refused to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples. She claimed it was due to her religious beliefs.
But she had also been divorced three times, something not allowed under strict biblical law. So whilst she may have a strong belief that homosexual marriage is bad, doesn't her infractions against other religious laws indicate that her belief in that religion is not sincere? Which would indicate that her opposition to same-sex marriage is not due to sincere religious belief.
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.
Jim Crow laws were laws. It was institutionalized state sponsored racism. State laws forbid businesses from allowing customers of different races to intermingle. It wasn't possible for businesses to choose not to racially descriminate because the law required them to descriminate.
Once Jim Crow laws were repealed businesses, schools, etc. were able to be inclusive and not descriminatory.
In principle, the laws governing Protected Classes are just as oppressive on businesses as the Jim Crow segregation laws were. Instead of the state forbidding businesses to serve nonwhites the state no requires businesses to serve nonwhites. In both instances the govt is forcing private businesses to serve customers the state chooses without giving the private business the ability to choose their own customers.
Jim crow was more than just a legal institution, it was a cultural one. The laws were there just to legitimize the already deep-seated racism in the south. The businesses did make the choice, the choice to enact the racist policies within there own businesses.
As far at it being "just as oppressive" to force people to be treated equally on the basis of race, sex, ect that is to force them to be unequal, I find the notion vile. You think that equal protection is the same as discrimination, really? I can only hope you didn't think about the implications of what you wrote, and didn't mean it.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
Agreed! I'm going to have a busy weekend!
Kill everyone that cheats: If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
God hates the crippled, and you should, too: People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
God's last name isn't Dammit: Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
50% polyester is 100% sin: Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Kill the Buddhists: If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 16:01:33
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
Agreed! I'm going to have a busy weekend!
Kill everyone that cheats: If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
God hates the crippled, and you should, too: People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
God's last name isn't Dammit: Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
50% polyester is 100% sin: Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Kill the Buddhists: If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Did you just cite a bunch of laws that begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel?' "
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
Agreed! I'm going to have a busy weekend!
Kill everyone that cheats: If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
God hates the crippled, and you should, too: People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
God's last name isn't Dammit: Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
50% polyester is 100% sin: Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Kill the Buddhists: If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
FYI, buddhists don't have a god.
Don't forget if your kid is disrespectful, take him down to the river and stone him.
Polonius wrote: First, you can't have parody's without sincere examples. The only way to have a parody religion is to admit the existence of sincere religions.
Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean you can just decide that thousands of years and billions of people are all just deluded, and there are no sincere religious beliefs.
I was rather fond of the "Church of the Sub-Genius".
http://www.subgenius.com/ All praise be to Bob!
In all sincerity, quite a few philosophers have brought up a few issues on the topic "for thousands of years".
This site is quite helpful on trying out some more critical thinking (or at least the sincerity and reasoning for your devotion...)
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/
A more recent philosopher I "enjoy" is Nietzsche:
The everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him.
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human"
He generally viewed religion as THE parody and not needing anything further to make fun of it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/29 16:16:49
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Tactical_Spam wrote: Did you just cite a bunch of laws that begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel?' "
Pretty sure kronk's post is reduction ad absurdum to show why Malus's "you have to obey every precept 100%" comment is unworkable.
I mean, I thought it was fairly obvious.
so what percentage is required to be considered a true christian?
Surely if people are trying to get the freedom to practice with no legal consequences, then where is the line drawn? are they going to be happy with just the ability to discriminate at will, or will they start burning people as witches again?
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
God is a dick. He punishes everyone, whether they were responsible or not.
I like where this thread has gone.
This is why we can't have nice things. Yodrin/Killkrazy if you want to discuss the philosophical, and policy merits via PM that would be fine but I think we're knocking on banhammer here.
I'd love to discuss the policy implications as well.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The punishment for this is not listed and it makes me sad. Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
In my head, they are forced to wear plaid skorts.
Nope, because The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.
Which was fine, but the pope after discussing it with god stated atheists can be good and get into heaven. So there you go, christianity is no longer needed, just be good, forget god, and still get into heaven without having to worry about who is in the stall next to you
Tactical_Spam wrote: Did you just cite a bunch of laws that begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel?' "
Pretty sure kronk's post is reduction ad absurdum to show why Malus's "you have to obey every precept 100%" comment is unworkable.
I mean, I thought it was fairly obvious.
so what percentage is required to be considered a true christian?
Surely if people are trying to get the freedom to practice with no legal consequences, then where is the line drawn? are they going to be happy with just the ability to discriminate at will, or will they start burning people as witches again?
I have no idea why you're asking me, I was just heading off the "Old Testament isn't for Christians!" argument before it even started. I don't believe in any of it, so uh... 69%? That's a good number, right?
