Saru Inc

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven? Prove it then. (Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists). Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever? What if one day someone will prove God doesn't exist? Will you stop believing? Sorry for anyone taking that as an insult, but- If God isn't proven to exist, isn't it just like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? As in, in something made up? P.S. I meant can't prove right now. Not that it matters... Well I could answer your question, or you could answer mine. ;) If someone proved there is no way ever in any way that God could exist, then I guess I would stop believing. But as of right now, God is as real to me as the laptop I'm typing on

Well yea thats what I'm saying, I mean surely many things in his world exist that can;t be proven yet... I just dislike people who say it can never be proven. And this off-topic thread has gone pretty off-topic.

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven? Prove it then. (Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists). Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever?

connnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngrats

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven?

Thats interesting o.O

^^ lol

preach.

92m for 99 Herb? Thats it? Well good luck. And grats on 99 Agility.

Grats :)) I do believe that 60 Attack\Def and 80 Def have by far the longest level up messages :P

But the same can be said for the pros. Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows. But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else. This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think... What pros are you looking at? TO use Christianity for an example: If you followw the teachings: Pros: -Philanthropy\Altruism -Charity -Humility -Support for the current Government -Promotion of honesty, and good morals* Theres probably a lot more but I'm exhausted so cbf. *Now please, before anyone says "my morals might not be the same as yours, I like killing babies, cussing and lying" (obviously an exaggeration) I mean good morals include: following the law, being honest, being a good person in general.

OMG I LOVE 80's MOVIES! I love glam metal too. Unfortunately I was born in 1990, so I missed the 80s. But tbh I'd have to be born by at least 1985 to remember anything, so I missed the 80s by a long shot technically :P I <333 Breakfast club

Thats interesting o.O

Whatttttttttttt. no way.

Your Construction level is low. o ty i will learn nothing from your lvl 99 con

If you said the first two lines of that to the gay people I'm friends with they would rip you to shreds (verbally, not physically... although some of them may [female dog]-slap you a bit). As for the comment about religion - that is such a ridiculous generalisation. Sure, you only have to look at The Crusades to realise that religion can and does cause trouble, but it also brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people. Whilst not being religious myself I listen to a few Christian bands, mewithoutYou in particular, and I can't relate to some of the lyrics but I like hearing how passionate they are about religion and how the thought of God fills them with joy. It's not all trouble-causing and gay-bashing. The Crusades were never religious, but the army made it religious so the church would let them fight, because the Church was part of the gov't.

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature? That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind. I agree, I've read stories of certain animals migrating to new areas and cluster [bleep]ing the ecosystem established.

Yea, I know it was more about the Christian side. Tbh I actually do understand how people hate gays since I'm a bit of a, not rly heterophobe but something along the lines. As weird as it sounds, a man and a woman creeps me out.

nechs suck but u r pro

o ty i will learn much from your lvl 90 con

YOU CAN DO IT@@@

Note: I'm not trolling, or being an [wagon] this is a serious post: If I am a Christian... and I believe Gods ok with Homos since, well he makes them, why do you think it is a sin? I mean obviously people get different things from the Bible (thus the need for different denominations) but I'm saying what are your personal views based on what you've garnered from reading it? 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." These are all sinners, yet they are forgiven by God. So while I feel it is wrong, I believe God will be the judge of that, not our government, as I previously stated. And to the argument that God is ok with it because he makes them, that's pretty murky water. God makes serial killers, thieves, and all other perverts too. As a final note, I really hope to not sound preachy. I'm not trying to force my ideas on anyone, just explain my beliefs. http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian Read the site ^^ rly good read (you too Y Guy) Key pointers: [spoiler=LONG QUOTE] First off: Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." On the surface, these words could leave you feeling rather uneasy, especially if you are gay. But just below the surface is the deeper truth about God -- and it has nothing to do with sex. Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!) So what's a holiness code? It's a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures. And: Once again, this story is not primarily about sex. It is primarily about God. Some people say the city of Sodom was destroyed because it was overrun by sexually obsessed homosexuals. In fact, the city of Sodom had been doomed to destruction long before. So what is this passage really about? Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom. Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes." Today, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike do well to remember that we break God's heart when we spend all we earn on ourselves, when we forget the poor and hungry, when we refuse to do justice or show mercy, when we leave strangers at the gate. I admit, there are a lot of gay folk who are Sodomites (and a lot of straight folk as well). Sodomites are rich and don't share what they have with the poor. Sodomites have plenty and want more. While millions are hungry, homeless, and sick, Sodomites rush to build bigger homes, buy bigger cars, and own more property -- putting their trust in safer stock portfolios and more secure retirement accounts. Now what does the creation story say about homosexuality? Because the text says it is "natural" that a man and a woman come together to create a new life, some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are "unnatural." They read this interpretation into the text, even though the text is silent about all kinds of relationships that don't lead to having children: couples who are unable to have children couples who are too old to have children couples who choose not to have children people who are single Are these relationships (or lack of relationships) "unnatural"? There's nothing said here that condemns or approves the love that people of the same sex have for each other. ften, the Holy Spirit uses science to teach us why those ancient words no longer apply to our modern times. During the last three decades, for example, organizations representing 1.5 million U.S. health professionals (doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and educators) have stated definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural as heterosexual orientation, that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of yet unknown pre- and post-natal influences, and that it is dangerous and inappropriate to tell a homosexual that he or she could or should attempt to change his or her sexual orientation What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, "abominations" (TO'EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive. To the Jews an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews thought was displeasing to God. Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality. Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man's sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder. The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk "wasting" even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. ^^if that seems... scattered around, its becsause iti s. I saw the site, and remembered this topic and decided to put it in. Now to the 1 cor 6-9 Bam.

I didn't see ZS, whip OR bgs and as like "wow where did 99 fish money go." wow where did 99 fish money go. 9\10

GAGA IS SO IN THE MOMENT. and ye spice girls fail but that song came on the radio L

Against my religion. TRUE! So expensive...