k i hate to do this, but i have to respond once again because im thinking you must not have understood what i said.
i only took your sentence out of context because the sentence before it doesnt apply. you said "However, many people feel to urge to act irrationally and violently toward one another solely because of the differences in their beliefs about religion." i didnt quote that cause it simply doesnt happen. it's like me saying that if my grade in gov was based SOLELY on attendence, i'd have an A. sure, that's true, but it doesnt matter cause thats not how it is. people dont hate SOLELY due to differences in religion. people hate for a million other reasons that i, casey, and frank already have said (ignorance, politics, everything i said, etc.). so take religion out of the picture and theyd probably start fighting about some other difference.
the second part you surely misunderstood. sure, i know some religious people have fought because of skin color, but my point was that remove religion and i bet people will still fight about skin color. i bet there will still be sexism. i bet theyll still fight about sexual preference. "You also mentioned power, but this falls short of my argument. Both with and without religion, power would still be coveted." thats exactly my point. with or without religion, people will still fight.
i concede that i was wrong about "people in general dont kill eachother today." i was only thinking in terms of highly industrialized countries like america, england, australia, and countries like that. you said people still kill eachother today, maybe more than in ancient times, and that brings up another point. i still believe that killing was more rampant in ancient times, but even if the levels were somewhat equal, doesnt that imply that they kill today as much as they did back then? and doesnt that mean that religion hasnt made a significant negative effect?
and about the stupid bumper sticker thing...well yeah the bumber sticker's clearly wrong, but i applaud the creator for his clever little analogy. i dont believe you have to believe everything a church believes to attend it. it does not make you a hypocrite. you can go to grocery store and you dont have to buy food. churches arent reserved only for those who worship. you can go to a church to LEARN about religion as well, and you're allowed to "miss some of the main points of religion" if you dont 100% believe in that religion. thats why churches are open to anyone who cares to attend, not just those who are crazy into it. you can go for fellowship if you want to. maybe you share similar interests that dont involve complete faith in that religion. the definition of fellowship does indeed involve sharing of similar interests, ideals, or experiences, but where in webster's dictionary does it state that you must share ALL INTERESTS EXACTLY THE SAME WITHOUT ONE IOTA OF DISAGREEMENT.
(insert some profound concluding comment here or something).
i only took your sentence out of context because the sentence before it doesnt apply. you said "However, many people feel to urge to act irrationally and violently toward one another solely because of the differences in their beliefs about religion." i didnt quote that cause it simply doesnt happen. it's like me saying that if my grade in gov was based SOLELY on attendence, i'd have an A. sure, that's true, but it doesnt matter cause thats not how it is. people dont hate SOLELY due to differences in religion. people hate for a million other reasons that i, casey, and frank already have said (ignorance, politics, everything i said, etc.). so take religion out of the picture and theyd probably start fighting about some other difference.
the second part you surely misunderstood. sure, i know some religious people have fought because of skin color, but my point was that remove religion and i bet people will still fight about skin color. i bet there will still be sexism. i bet theyll still fight about sexual preference. "You also mentioned power, but this falls short of my argument. Both with and without religion, power would still be coveted." thats exactly my point. with or without religion, people will still fight.
i concede that i was wrong about "people in general dont kill eachother today." i was only thinking in terms of highly industrialized countries like america, england, australia, and countries like that. you said people still kill eachother today, maybe more than in ancient times, and that brings up another point. i still believe that killing was more rampant in ancient times, but even if the levels were somewhat equal, doesnt that imply that they kill today as much as they did back then? and doesnt that mean that religion hasnt made a significant negative effect?
and about the stupid bumper sticker thing...well yeah the bumber sticker's clearly wrong, but i applaud the creator for his clever little analogy. i dont believe you have to believe everything a church believes to attend it. it does not make you a hypocrite. you can go to grocery store and you dont have to buy food. churches arent reserved only for those who worship. you can go to a church to LEARN about religion as well, and you're allowed to "miss some of the main points of religion" if you dont 100% believe in that religion. thats why churches are open to anyone who cares to attend, not just those who are crazy into it. you can go for fellowship if you want to. maybe you share similar interests that dont involve complete faith in that religion. the definition of fellowship does indeed involve sharing of similar interests, ideals, or experiences, but where in webster's dictionary does it state that you must share ALL INTERESTS EXACTLY THE SAME WITHOUT ONE IOTA OF DISAGREEMENT.
(insert some profound concluding comment here or something).
<3 hot pants
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment