Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/5/05 08:39 PM, spamishfli wrote:

At 7/4/05 06:01 PM, AlexandertheGreatest wrote: G-d does exist, and there are several ways to prove it without a opposing theory. The Grand canyon was scientifically created by fast moving water, and was created within a short ammount of time (by short, I mean week-month). This can be proven, for if it was carved over a long period of time, the rock would be of diffferent minerals, etc, wheareas it is almost all the same mineral and rock.

There are artifcats found in Oil wells deep below the earth's surface.

thats just the tip of the iceberg. I'll get the rest of the facts later.

Even if so... how can anyone prove that God created them?

As far as we know, Vishnu and Quetzacoatl are as good of canidates as any other.

well, i don't know about that guy, but i would feel perfectly comfortable praying to either of them. a name is a name is a name, but 'god' is above all names. (well, atleast vishnu, i'e never heard of quetzacoatl)

At 7/5/05 08:35 PM, Dracor wrote:
Well, I AM a Buddhist... and I know full well that there have been attrocities commited in the past by Buddhists.

Buddhist History

To QUOTE 'Tibetan art sometimes still portrays the more violent and disturbing aspects of Tantric practice--rape, bestiality, etc.'

Even peaceful religions are not always perfect. I'm not starting an argument here, it's a fact. Religous theory is perfect. However, the people who put it into practice are not.

Of course, in all fairness, this tantric practice was from Buddhism in India (before its fall in the 11th century).

we all know how screwed up india got. all the fighting etc by buddhists was very much provoked. and from what i've found the tantric practices you speak of are more common in hinduism that buddhism, but whatever.

At 7/5/05 08:39 PM, Dracor wrote: And, my apologies, I have no historical information on the Mormons. Although i believe the Donner party became trapped in the mountains while searching for Zion and began eating eachother. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

i saw a thing on discovery a while ago (i never really got too into the mormons) but usually when people are trapped in the mountains (or any desolate place) they actually end up going insane especially without any food and it results in canablism. that happened (i'm not sure if it happened either haha) but if it did, it was because of insanity.

not all religions are as strict in how you think. i know most Epsicopal churchs are merely a place for community and learning of the Bible. every bible study i've ever attended in an Episcopal Church has been relatively the same. Someone chooses a passage, reads it and explains what they think it means. we then go around the room discussin what each person thinks it means. we never come to a clear cut answer for the whole group, because it's as i see it, and as many of the rectors/priests/pastors/ministers/etc i've talked to have told me the same thing. Religion is a very personal thing. The church (or orginized religion) is just a place for community and to share your own ideas etc etc. but that's just what i have to say about people who say organized religion doesn't allow for free thinking.

anyways... agnosticism. i'm really indifferent towards it. i even find myself in doubt of God's existence, yet i personally always seem to return to Him. i sometimes just cannot be sure He does exist, but iunno. i've befriended more agnostics than athiests (not saying i hate athiests, in fact i love them because i love everybody, but i can't stand everybody...anyways) so yea. i can personally understand an agnostics way of thinking more easily than an athiests. but oh well.

At 7/5/05 01:39 PM, Dracor wrote:

At 7/5/05 12:57 AM, -Illustrious- wrote:

At 7/4/05 06:10 PM, NumaHater666 wrote: AGAINST church tax-exemption

7. Some religions have historically been violent.

Really? Are they sure it isn't 'ALL religions have been historically violent.'

yes. name one violent thing a Buddhist has done to you. name one violent thing a Mormon has done to you (with out being provoked). same thing for the Amish.

At 7/5/05 07:32 PM, NumaHater666 wrote:

At 7/4/05 10:13 PM, -TheRat- wrote: They should not be taxed because it would go against God.

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. HELLO, who cares if it is against god? I'm sure some people do, but the overwhelming majority of the planet doesn't worship the same god! To say that just because you believe it is so is crass, rude and ignorant.

Actually, I, being a christian, take the muslim belief that we are all worshiping the same God. and i know that christians and jews are worshipping the same God (unless you take the view of the old God being Vengful etc, and the 'new God' loving and kind or whatever) so yea...

A church has a certain income from its parishioners. The percentage of that tincome used for a non-religious purpose (i.e. running a homeless shelter, building a playground, a soup kitchen...so long as it's secular and not skewed to favor their beliefs) is tax-free as it is a valid NONprofit activity. Any money used to support the church itself (renovations, political action, etc.) since it is supporting the members of the church and not the public, should be taxed. Any rebuttal?

Because it's a donation! No one is making a 'real profit' from it. even the priest is given only enough to maintain a decent life. meaning, some sort of internet access (my rector has the ole 56k) food, shelter, telephone, clothes etc. The basic needs of today's society is needed. So no one 'profits' from it in a monetary way. and, do all donations help the public? why arn't donations to colleges taxed? colleges are private instatutions (or well, not the state colleges, but you know what i mean).

At 7/5/05 11:59 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 7/4/05 10:13 PM, -TheRat- wrote: They should not be taxed because it would go against God.

;
If the religions are doing "Gods Work" or whatever you would like to call it, why doesn't God just fill up their bank account.
Taxes wouldn't matter then.

money is not necessary to worship God. Money is a man made thing. it is because of society a church needs money. Even if a church just wanted to go out into the woods or somewhere to hold their services, it'll still cost them money to do it. no church actually wants money, but society has made money a necessetiy for that community to suvive.

The truth is more that "people in charge of a religion" want control of other men.
If I want to be in control of others I open a business, hire the people needed , They get taxed, I get taxed, my business gets taxed, why should a church(which is a business) get a free ride.
And befor someone spouts off about people chosen to do gods work-remember
in the case of many ministers/ Priests abusing the children 'they love'.

all people sin. they made a mistake. and that 'many' is actually very few, and has only happened in America. check it out sometime. very few priests have actually commited that crime.

Can anyone not be aware of how many child molesters are members of the clergy.
They and the church they represent should be shut down, assets seized by the gov.

why should an entire church be punished for one person's mistake? and why shoul the government sieze the gold crosses and statues of Mary and Jesus? what is the government going to do with it?

At 6/24/05 12:25 AM, fastbow wrote: The problem is, why do you people still try to argue that the Bible says to hate gays, when many people have said the Bible says to hate homosexuality, not homosexuals. If all christians literaly were "little Christs", we wouldn't even be debating this now.....

sorry, double post, didn't see this the first time through...

that's because many people have different interpretations etc etc. not every christian believes in exactly the same thing, which is the beauty of i think. i can live my life, being a christian, and yet have almost entirely different views that other christians. but, i do know that for most christian denominations, we (as christians in general) are capable of accepting others not of the same exact denomination into our midsts ans 'break bread' or whatever. i know that in the episcopal church "all baptised christians are welcome to recieve communion." that's said every sunday(or any other time of communion) in,i believe, all episcopal churchs. Christianity is capable of being so diverse, yet as many churchs are striving to do today, very unified.

At 6/24/05 12:49 AM, ComradRoter wrote: Whats most important about this entire debate is simply... What ever happened to separation of church and state!?

actually, that's not important. the topic starter said nothing about constitutional rights for gays and lesbians etc, but about religion and homosexuality. Laws and Rights has nothign to do with this discussion. you need to read the entire thread, instead of jsut jumping in and saying what many others before you have said (though, not in this thread, because THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT) so, please move on.

At 6/23/05 06:59 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: Bannana sweet man you do know people can interriput the bible any ways you want, it's just when so many of the verses say something is bad that it kinda sticks in. NO offense to you lifestyle but your link is kinda biased. No offense to you but you can only pick one lifestlyle choice.

that was my link. and that site shows that there is not a whole bunch of verses saying the same thing. it (in my mind atleast) proves that natural homosexuality is not sinful. it deals with each of the verses that people quote while trying to claim homosexuality will send a man straight to hell, no if's and's or but's about it. In each case it clearly shows that natural homosexuality is not the thing being punished. it's either rape/molestion/etc. the bible says nothing anywhere about natural homosexuality as a sin. To me (not being a strict person on interpretations of what the bible says and doesn't say) means that natural homosexuality is not sin, but going against one's own nature (as shown through those passages in the thing on that site) is a sin.

now, many people don't believe homosexuality to be natural, and say it's always a choice, or because of a person's influences in their early life, whatever. i don't doubt that's why some people are homosexual. for me, personally, there was no 'choice' and i can't seem to find any kind of events that would make me homosexual. so, here's a hug *hug*.

At 6/23/05 04:49 PM, banana_man_sweet wrote:
It must be hard for you to be a christian and gay. I dont hate you because your gay. I dont agree with your life style.

No, not so much. The episcopal church is quite liberal i guess would be the word when it comes to it. I believe it's the most 'liberal' denomination of Christianity at this point in time. :).

At 6/22/05 01:18 PM, revexe wrote:

Looking at the men first will help to clarify the passage: “The men likewise gave up natural relations with women…” Stop. Did you see that? They gave up natural relations with women, which implies that these men were heterosexuals by nature.

LOL, He say these man were heterosexuals by nature, and yet the scripture say "they GAVE UP". How is that nature, that is a decision. LOL

The phrase translated as “gave up” is the Greek word aphente (afenteV) meaning to leave behind, forsake, neglect, or divorce.

See? That proves my point. A decision.

EXACTLY! that scripture doesn't say that homosexuality is a choice in and of it self and as a whole for every single homosexual.. it is saying in THAT INSTANT that the men created an abomination by going AGAINST NATURE. that scripture is moot when it comes to talking about someone who is naturally homosexual (i.e. myself).

Now you will say "but it's not natural, you somehwere in your life chose to be a homosexual" but i can not recall at any point in my life that i said to myself "lets go enjoy the sight of other boys etc etc..." if you would like to disect my life and tell me where i mad this descision by all means. then you will tell me that it's because of bad influences. well, my mom's catholic, so i doubt she would try and turn me gay, same for my dad (episcopal).

so anyways. Romans (and basically all other verses used to denounce homosexuality) deal with specific instances in which men did choice ot have relations with other men, yet we can't not take these verses and say that all homosexual acts are a choice, because the Bible never mentions anything ill to those who are naturally homosexual. none of those instances deals with the idea of natural homosexuality. so anyways, you obviously (from other posts) do not belive in natural homosexuality, but whatever.

At 6/22/05 11:11 AM, revexe wrote:

At 6/22/05 10:55 AM, BMWM5Sedan wrote: Who is this "god" you speak of?

Please, next time quote to whoever you want to talk to. I think you´re talking to me so:

"Who is this God?" hoho what kind of question is that? The only allmighty God. Our savoir. YHWH. Our father(Just as Jesus told us to call God) . Saint John gave us a new definition of God, saying that he is love (1 John 4,8), etc etc etc.

--rev.exe--

I myself am a gay christian. http://www.truthsetsfree.net/ this website quite clearly refutes all of the bible passages you've been using to describe homosexuality as a sin. It has a short study (about 10 pages in Adobe Acrobat Reader) that goes into an indepth analysis of the original context of each passage used to denouce Homosexuality and it even goes so far as to the meanings of the original Greek and Hebrew meanings of words. It's alot more reliable to know the meanins of the actual words used in the original scripture of the bible than on the interpretations of the many translators over time. please give it a look over and here's a hug from me and JESUS.

At 6/13/05 10:50 AM, hypern wrote:

:Will there be a time when all turn away from god and accept sceince, or will there be both always existing to fight or join together as one.

it is possible to accept science and God. so i believe there will be less fundamental religion with the extreme bible thumpers (or whatever thumpers) and more moderate religious people (i.e. myself) and so on. but there will always be religion in some form.

At 6/12/05 06:21 PM, Largo84 wrote: Well, the river is spelled "Styx" and thats awsome that she came back to life twice.

Budhism is truely a good religon, Christianity is mainly about peace, but when you look at George Bush

"bombs and war, bombs and war".

So Buddhists are the ones that are the most peacefull, thats always a good thing.

Buddhism is a very interesting religion, far 'better' (for lack of a better term) than Hinduism. There is no 'god', but cosmic forces (i.e. Karma) at work in the universe keeping the balance of good and evil. whats cool about buddhism is the whole point of beinga good person is to get out of this hell we call life and to not exist any more. :) very pleasant isn't it?

christianity is not about 'peace in the world' but rather 'finding peace with God, which then leads to peace in the world' but the main focus of Christianity is not suppost to be peace of the world, but for oneself. here's a hug all the same *hug*.

At 5/30/05 05:06 PM, TCStyle wrote:

At 5/30/05 04:52 PM, fli wrote: I do not believe they support having promiscious sex--
What makes you believe that?

Homosexual- Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
I believe public schools have no right promoting any type of sexual orientation. Awareness is one thing, but this goes way beyond common knowledge. We might as we'll have a bunch of fetish groups. If you are a homosexual, more power to you, but there is no need to flaunt it in school... same goes with any sexual orientation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterosexuality definition of hetersosexuality i the same thing, except opposite sex.

the GSA at my own school really doesn't do much with the whole gay awarness thing, but it's a group of kids that sponsor school events and charities. it's not a place where people 'hook up' they just go. they don't have like a session where people stand up and say "hi, i'm gay" or whatever, they are just a group. there are straight/gay/lesbian/transgender kids in it. (not sure about the transgender, but it's part of their title..somehow) anyways...

i had some more ranting to do, but i don't really care anymore.

At 5/24/05 10:56 PM, stuntman22 wrote: 1. do child rapists deserve death?

no.

2. can child rapists can be rehabilitated?

for the most part, yes.

3. and should child rapists fill out a form to label them as threats to society?

no. that's ruining someone's life. only the certifiable rehabilitated are let back into society, and are no longer as threats. they should not have any restrictions on them other than the sex offender on their record. i guess that no near a school/park thing too, but how immpractical is that? especially with the emphasis on education these days, and new schools popping up everhwere. whhere the fuck are they suppost to go? they deserve a second shot at life.

At 5/9/05 04:45 PM, punisher19848 wrote: While it's true that every now and then a hetro-couple porduces a gay offspring, the gene will not be passed to the next generation because there won't be one (due to the gay individual's inability or unwillingness to have intercourse with the opposite gender). Every time this happens, a generation of the "gay gene" is eliminated. Therefore, it is only a matter of time before this genetic anomoly is purged entirely. How long will it take? A century? Serveral millenia? More? Who knows, but it will happen. Why do you think there are no gay wild animals? Answer: because they have been purged out by the process of natural selection faster than ours have been (the birth of human culture has slowed donw natural selection considerably in many areas, but it will eventually catch up to us). Those who can't reproduce (naturally) will eventually die out

By the way, if your willing to procreate with a woman you might not be as gay you think. Perhaps you need to properly identify your true sexual identity (no, it doesn't have to be striaght: could be more of a bi-sexual tendancy).

At 5/9/05 04:15 PM, RBS13 wrote:

homosexuals do not come from the procreation of two homosexuals (artificial insemination) but come from heterosexual relationships. nature will never be able to 'purge' homosexuals from the population. also, i being a gay person, could very well procreate with a women. my sperm is not defective because i'm gay. again, artifical insemination, or just sex.

every now and then a hetero couple produces a homosexual? w.t.f. as you've said, homosexuals can't procreate with other homosexuals (unless it's a gay guy and a lesbian, but anyways) so obviously all homosexuals come from heterosexual relationships.

o.m.g. no gay wild animals?! where the hell have you been.

http://www.rockhawk.com/Gay%20Animals.htm
http://www.narth.com/docs/sheep.html

and there are plenty more reliable sites. just google it. there are also some monkeys that show signs of homosexual tendances. can't remember which though.

also, many believe there is no 'one' gay gene that makes a person gay. it is a combination of genes, which will be pretty im possible to ever estinguish. and, seeing as how big the population is, it's not likely at all for it to be squished out of existence.

another thing..., INTERCOURSE (in the modern age) IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO PROCREAT! artificial insemination.

i'm also willing to jump out of an airplane. does that make me a bird? or part bird part man?

At 5/9/05 04:00 PM, punisher19848 wrote:
By the way: even though I've had some homosexual friends in highschool, I always acknowledged that they are likely a bug in the system of natural selection that nature will purge out (due to the inability of gays to procreate with the opposite gender), but see no reason to take action against them. I'll just let the Darwinian proccess sort them out and send them to their inevitable deaths without offspring.

homosexuals do not come from the procreation of two homosexuals (artificial insemination) but come from heterosexual relationships. nature will never be able to 'purge' homosexuals from the population. also, i being a gay person, could very well procreate with a women. my sperm is not defective because i'm gay. again, artifical insemination, or just sex.

CrispiNuggets you can answer me when you get back, but what kind of things woudl yo usay have influenced me since i was young to harbor such sexual tendancies as homosexuality?

i live in a white, suburban household. with a mother father, a brother and sister and antoehr brother in college. I live outside Philadelphia if that changes anything. i go to school. i'm not dumb. i have guy friends and girl friends. i enjoy some sports, but i'm more partial do the Drama department at my school. iunno waht else to say, but iunno.... gay influences? not a dammed one in this area. (just ask wade or tom) :-P.

At 4/13/05 05:07 PM, Rooster349 wrote:)

You're not supposed to literally be afraid of him. You just have to believe that if he wanted to, at this instant, he could take your life or the whole world. To be God-fearing means to recognize that he is the source of creation, and thus has the power to take it.

what other way to fear is there? Also, there is no reason to fear God if you know that He loves you and you Love him. what is there to fear? If God sticks to His word, then i should not need to fear him because i love Him. Sure he could kill me right now, but i know He won't, because i love Him and He loves me :).

At 4/13/05 05:28 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

At 4/13/05 05:13 PM, King_Hammurabi wrote: You're forgetting the fact that not all religions believe in heaven and hell, and I think that needs to be taken into account...

You have to forgive me, but I don't know a lot about Hinduism or Buddhism and I don't really care. I reject Hinduism because of the caste system and I reject Buddhism because they worship a man. Voltaire said that religion was so neccessary to man that if they didn't have one, they'd make one up. Time and time again that's been proven, through idol worship, and I'd be willing to argue for Hinduism/Buddhism as well.

Jesus is worshipped. The Buddha in no comparitive way is worshiped as Jesus is worshipped. He was simply a man who reached 'enlightenment' and taught others. no prayers go to him, no anything. in fact, the 'original buddha' doesn't exist any more, in no plane of existence there is. the original buddha is gone from this earth in entirety soul in all (speaking from a buddhist's prospective) Buddhists believe that once someone reaches enlightment they can no longer exist (the whole point of the religion) so, since the Buddhists know the Buddha no longer exists, they would never worship him or send him prayers or what not.

At 4/13/05 02:49 PM, fli wrote:

Worshipping because of fear of God is pseudo-faith. It's fake, and you're very wrong to advocate this. If you're gonna believe in God, then truly believe in it. Any otherwise is called deception, not to one's self, but to the Higher Being.

ya know what is funny? most christian churchs teach you to fear God. i know mine does, which kind of irratates me (it's in one of the prayers or something that's read every sunday)

At 4/10/05 10:13 AM, The_Forcer wrote:
Monoteism is beliving only in one God, in other words, there is God and there are humens. By monoteism, there is no such thing as half-god, and that means Jesus was just a man.

Jesus wasn't a 'half god' he was/is God. and so on and whatever.

At 4/9/05 06:23 PM, muteecho wrote: Christianity cant be a TRUE monotheistic religion because God is by himself he is so powerful and great.No one is his parners.Having a son just breaks that rule.

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same thing/being.
Thus creating a monothesitic religion.

At 3/28/05 07:01 AM, nuigurumi wrote: Also, I think you're kinda smaking God upside the face here. You're just supposed to believe. Why are you trying to prove what happened with all sorts of "evidence". Your actions pretty much say to me that you have doubts with your own faith since you do not accept God's words without looking for outside support of the Bible's claims.

if you don't question the bible, then you don't know what you are 'supposed' to believe. God gave us free will, but he also gave us intelligence and reasoning for a reason. We are suppost to use them to understand how he did things. The bible is more of the why He did things.. you aren't simply supposed to 'believe', how pathetic would that be?

At 3/27/05 09:33 AM, Kaabi wrote: The word that translates into Virgin is the same as Maiden so it could actually just be maiden Mary, and if thats true then all of Christianity is pointless. I'm Jewish, I don't believe in Jesus, I think he was smart, I just think his disciples interpreted him wrong and then made a new religion. If that wasn't so, there would be so many more Jews. That would be nice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=maiden

a maiden usually is a virgin, or one that is not married. at the time of Mary, it was unlawful to have sex before you were married, so it is pretty safe to assume that she was a virgin mother even if the translation of whatever taht word is was maiden meaning unmarried woman.

At 3/23/05 08:50 PM, BugsBunny666 wrote: or have a guy fantisizing about me wen he is jackin off.

too late ;)

does any one actually celebrate the full 12 days of christmas anymore? not many. i do, along with m;y family and church, but whatever. just thought i'd share that little bit with you ;) :-*

At 3/21/05 01:38 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Remember, heterosexuals do not need a parade, because how many people out there "fear" or "hate" straight people? Why is this? Because heterosexuality is celebrated all the time through our societal Norms. Everyday we are "bombarded" with heterosexuality... so much so, that we don't even notice it.

oh i hate the bloddy heterosexuals. if a girl came up to me and started hitting on me! i would be flabbergasted! can't she just tell that i'm gay!?

At 3/19/05 11:20 AM, FatherVenom wrote: Shit, I lost the rest of my post.

At 3/18/05 09:16 PM, RBS13 wrote: why do most infants, and even all the way up to adults sometimes revert to the fetal position. just another human characteristic shown before birth.

It's the safest position. You see it in pill bugs all the way up to monkeys. Noted animals for the fetal position, echidnas, armadillos, hedgehogs, etc.

doesn't that then prove we do remember being in the fetal position in the first place? meaning that memories are created during pregnancy? or is this more of an instinct?

something you, nano, said in your first post made me think of something. (i'm on your side for the most part, i'd just like to add). well, you said "no memory while in the womb" but, why do most infants, and even all the way up to adults sometimes revert to the fetal position. just another human characteristic shown before birth.

At 3/18/05 07:43 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Few questions, what if neither can support the child? Also, giving birth, and the pregnancy does cause many changes on the woman's body, none to the males body. Some of the changes are irreversable, to the woman, so that is why I think it should be more of the woman's choice than the father's choice. Now if they two could sit down and talk about it, get a lawyer to write the paperwork where the father will take full custody of the child, and the mother agrees to carry the baby to term then no problem with that.

so she gets a little fatter, needs to have some consequences to deal with. now, i'm quite ignorant when it comes to pregnancy (or atleast what exactly occurs during it) so what irreversable changes actually happen?

if neither could support the child, then a number of possiblities could occur. i would want to see happen the most is the mother (and the father if he wants to, but he's not really needed) to actually go out and find a family willing to adopt their child before she actually get birth. this way, she can get to know the family/parents that will be adopting her child. a women doesn't need to wait till the last minute to give up the child. if a woman gets pregnant, she has 9months before that baby is born. to me that seems like plenty of time (even after all the pregnant woman stuff that needs to get done, and she should hopefully get maternity leave) to decide what she wants to do with the child. i would also encorage her to try and find a couple that wants to adopt, and get to know them (if she doesn't want to keep the baby) over an abortion.

to whoever said that the rape victim wouldn't want the kid from the pregnancy from the rape around because it would be a constant reminder, but i don't think they would forget all about it (the rape) or the abortion after they got it.