RexMilotic

What? I believe equal opportunity also implies that those who take advantage of it should receive the benefits from it, not suffer from more taxes because of it. Instead everyone should have the same taxes, since that would be part of "equal opportunity". Read and understand the rest of the post? :roll: I read it, and I understood it. I was saying your logic sucks. Taxing the reach is not at all the most logical thing to do if you're supporting equal opportunity, so why even bother posting it if it contradicts your own views?

That's why I suggest getting something else, and maybe give cash with it. You can't really go wrong with cash imo, and if it's with something special, then it should work out.

Nearly every girl I know who claims to be bi actually mean that, they constantly flip flop the gender they're going out with. I honestly don't get how it works with girls, but for guys I know it's not something that you just choose to switch.

Cash. It normally works out really nice if you're really having a hard time. You could also get something cheap like a teddy bear and give cash also, then you'll have the nice cute gift and something else for that person.

What? I believe equal opportunity also implies that those who take advantage of it should receive the benefits from it, not suffer from more taxes because of it. Instead everyone should have the same taxes, since that would be part of "equal opportunity".

I could use one verse an attempt to defend it, but it's not worth the effort. Instead, the Bible speaks more of not allowing Jews to marry outside of Jews because of mixing religions and cultures.

This always bugs me... People have known that the Earth was round for centuries before Christianity. It wasn't discovered by the scientific elite, but by sailors (Phoenicians, unless I'm wrong) who noticed that boats disappear over the horizon. With the knowledge that it was curved an ancient Greek scientist whose well-known name escapes me was able to measure its diameter though. ...And I think that the interracial marriage thing was more based on racism than religion. There have been racist atheists too, look at H.P. Lovecraft, showing us that racism and religion aren't necessarily related... By we, I'm referring to anyone who doesn't just take what the book says and call it a fact. The interracial marriage is not allowed going by what the Bible says.

I had no problem at first with this thread, then I realized the author is trying to seem like an anarchist or failed rebel, something along those lines. Normally people like that don't understand what goes into law or economies. That is the perfect example. If there was no government, your money would be useless and wouldn't be able to get those services from those businesses. Then, if you did manage to get something, what happens if they scam you or cause you to get hurt? Are you going to sue them? You can't, because there's absolutely nothing preventing them from doing that,.

You weren't condescending in anyway fyi, and I agree with a lot of what you said. Except for one point. How is homosexuality in anyway not a choice? Admittedly someone raised by a homosexual parent/couple will be more inclined to it, but is still a choice. From whatever standpoint you look at it from, evolutionist or religious, it still doesn't make sense. From an evolutionist, gay couples can't reproduce, so if it was a gay gene it would more than likely die out. From a religious standpoint, you've probably heard many arguments why it's wrong. But here's another. You were right that sin is a choice, it's a warping of the things God intended for us. And as for the original sin, I think it's more of an ability to rebel against the Law, which is part of free will. And when you do look at a woman lustfully, it is considered the same as sleeping with that woman because in your heart you want to. It's the same with a man, if a man looks at a man and lusts after him, it's the same as him sleeping with him. It's not the act itself it's the intention behind the act. And from a Christian standpoint, even a non-denominational one(which I am too, meaning I take everything I believe directly from the bible and not from what some preacher said) marriage is solely between a man and woman, and it always has been, you can't deviate from that. And it's a sin to lust after someone other than your husband/wife. and as for the Ruth being a lesbian thing, I'll look into that, I have read Ruth as of yet, so I'm not sure. Although I'm not so sure it would matter much, seeing as Sinners run rampant in the bible. King David slept with someone other than his wife, and many other examples are everywhere in the bible. Just cause it's in the bible doesn't mean that God agrees with it. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite gender, or is that just how it is for you? The same thing goes for homosexuals. If it was a choice, then we wouldn't observe differences such as: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm between straight and gay people. As for the gay gene, instead of viewing it as one, view it as multiple different traits together. Those traits also have other effects, close relatives of gay person are more likely to produce more children, passing on the trait. Also, homosexuals can reproduce, why people ignore that I don't understand. From a religious standpoint, it doesn't matter. They would still believe the Earth is flat had we not corrected them. Marriage is not religious, a majority of things involved with marriage are actually due to the State. Also, your idea isn't the same as other religions, which others do allow marriage between male/male, female/female. Hell, we also had to force them to allow interracial marriage, because they're too incompetent to be allowed to run something such a marriage.

I'm not sure how you really need a different circumstance. They were cursed to be slaves by God, that alone is a good enough reason. Oh, sorry, I don't agree on that. I was referring to the parts in the Bible where after Israel (or another tribe\country) won a battle, they would enslave the losers. Oh, I'm referring after the Flood whenever Ham's family was cursed to be slaves by the family of the other brothers. Ham's family is also happened to be the family who moved into Africa after the Flood.

I'm not sure how you really need a different circumstance. They were cursed to be slaves by God, that alone is a good enough reason.

Umm, without coming off as a douche: I respect your opinion, however I beg to differ, allow me to explain. I was raised Presbyterian Christian, (Mother was Catholic, Father Free Methodist) and now I'm non denominational, which I like better. I believe as I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe as well: that everyone is born with original sin. From birth we are sinful, and need Jesus' forgiveness to become clean. However, after this point, I define sin as something that is done wrong, on purpose, and is morally, or faithfully incorrect, as well as unlawful by the laws in the establishment. (from stealing cookies from the cookie jar, to rape and murder in the big city.) No one is sinless save Jesus, because know one can overcome sin, though there are some that sin quite rarely, if you even look at a girl based on her body (based on some translations of the bible) that is considered lust, and is a sin. Ever miss church? Unless it was a complete accident, that is a sin (unless you are unable to get to church). These are on purpose, you chose to check out the girl's [wagon], or party Saturday night and miss church. Its your fault and no one else's (an exception is as stated there's no way to get there, like you have no ride etc.)you have put an idol before God, and sinned. Now, along the years, the Church has twisted the words of the Bible to promote Slavery, war and racism. (The Isrealites enslaved a tribe, therefore we can enslave Africans!) Without really even trying to get the real meaning out of a message. As posted on either this thread, or same sex marriage the Christian church used to not allow interracial marriages, etc. However, it has come to light that being of a different race is infact not a sin, as some honestly believed. If you are born black, you will stay black. Theres obviously nothing wrong with it, and you were born that way, you didn't choose it. Now I ask, whats the difference between being Gay, and being an African-American? They're both quite similar inthat they are not a choice, they're not 'inferior,' they're not detrimental to society and most certainly not a sin to be. If you say being Gay is unnatural, its tantamount to saying being black is unnatural. If I, and many others did not choose to be Gay, and no malicious ideas are behind us being gay, how is being gay a sin? Ever read the Bible? Ruth, a woman God dearly loved, was a lesbian. SAY WHAT. She even had a book dedicated to her. P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, or condescending etc. Actually, the Bible says that the sons of Ham are destined to be slaves for the other brothers. Most Biblical scholars agree Ham's children are the ones who went Africa. Besides, in multiple cases the Bible supports slavery. There's not really any word twisting needed to be done to show the Bible supported enslaving the African race.

Funny, a lot of atheists stand behind the principles of science like it is doctrine. Yet when it comes to disproving God all you need is a bit of sense? Sense could lead one either way, it all depends on one's point of view / outlook on life. And of course I wouldn't take my own life unless I could be absolutely certain that there was no God and thus life had no purpose. I'm not totally certain about anything, really. But I just cannot accept that life has no purpose. Not unless I am given concrete, irrefutable evidence. I don't care what atheist do. Do you see me standing behind scientific principles anywhere on this thread (other than arguing with someone about science and facts). Now, there difference between science and religion is something to be taken into account. Science deals with things that can be observed and measured, while with religion it's just the books says it. Using what the book says though, you can refute the God. Science requires something similar, which would be science refuting other things in science. The problem with using the Bible against science is the fact the Bible is wrong a ton, like when it calls bats birds. Science can also be wrong, but at least when there are things wrong they can be changed. With religion, if it's wrong, then you have a much bigger problem (since it's supposed to be perfect). Whether life means anything or it does, why does that make a difference? Are you that weak that you can't simply choose to live on? I mean, I understand life is hard, but at the same time it's fun. I believe life has no purpose, so I just take what I can/want out of it.

I heard about that, and how people were forced to join the church? I would hate that, and even though I don't support religion, I can understand where you're coming from.

It is possible to disprove the existence of a God who is based upon standards. It's been done multiple times. It isn't science used to disprove God either, just a bit of sense. Personally my belief is Nihilism, which is based on the fact that morality, meaning, and other such things do not exist at all (much more to it, but this is an extremely simplified version) I don't see any reason to kill myself for that, because that just seems like a bad idea. Instead my goal in life is what I give it. That reason is to have fun with it. When I no longer exist, it doesn't matter at all. Everyone is going to have the exact same thing happen when they die. Eternal life means nothing to me, and instead that idea seems like it's making this world worse. We could advance in many ways, but there are people with the idea that "playing God" is a bad thing. We should be playing God, because we don't see God doing anything to advance us anyways. Since I believe there is no God, I can offer the top three reasons (in that order) that I think the idea was made for. 1) Control. 2) Wtf, how do natural events happen. 3) Insanity. A morale boost is further along the line somewhere.