God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah largely because they allowed homosexual intercourse. Does the destruction of these two cities automatically get redeemed because he said "Oh, by the way, don't kill people even though I have."? I don't think so. That would make God a hypocrite for one thing, and not all-loving for another. I'm sorry, but that's an extremely BS argument. The word "human" isn't that important in the definition. Fact of the matter is, God still has morals, as we see in the Bible, since he is a personified deity who makes decisions. His reasoning for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, as I said earlier, was largely because of the homosexuality that they were allowing. If this doesn't tell you that God is, to put it extremely bluntly, a homophobe, then I don't know what does. I thought God was supposed to be on the highest pillar of justice, morality, love and mercy in the Universe? I guess not. If God were the epitome of wisdom, he would have been able to devise a solution that didn't involve breaking one of his own Commandments, which brings us back to the hypocrisy thing I mentioned earlier.
So why didn't God say "By the way guys, the Earth revolves around the sun, and killing gays is wrong."? Why did he instead allow them to be 100% incorrect in their science (not just astronomy, but a plethora of other things that could have contributed to mankind's advancement) and why did he destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? God had the same morals overall as the people of those ancient times. So much for the all loving aspect. As for the condemning women and minorities part, I suppose the word "condemn" was a bit harsh, but they were belittled and generally just not treated the same as men, and God allowed this, never once intervening. However, he thought it perfectly fine to intervene at Sodom and Gomorrah.
Gotta agree with this man on this one. He's basically just regurgitating some physics lingo and saying it means a god must exist, when he isn't showing any of his specific steps in logic that brought him to his conclusion. I'm not buying unless you can show me that.
You'll enjoy high school, I think. It's a fun time of your life as long as you don't fall into the common traps. Listen to this man, he is wise.
The various proposed "Creators" have some holy books that advocate faulty science, condemn homosexuals, women and minorities, and say that slavery is a-okay. I have a tough time following most of these "Creators," not only due to moral reasons, but logically as well. God said he created man on the spot in his image, when in reality we have more than enough evidence to prove that humans and apes share a common evolutionary ancestor.
I think calling creationists ******s is a bit much, but I agree, the sheer magnitude of the evidence against the literal teachings of most holy books is kinda tough to deny. I denied it for years of my life blindly, but eventually I just realized how blatant it was.
I think the poll option opposing the building of the mosque is a bit extreme, but nevertheless I don't think it should be built at Ground Zero. I have friends who are Muslims, and I honestly couldn't care less about what religion you are, but it's just not the place for it to happen. It adds a layer of insult to injury, if you will, even though the mosque would obviously not be championing radical Islamic ideals. The fact that Muslims caused the disaster at the WTC in the name of radical Islam kinda kills the chance of this being well accepted for any denomination of Islam.
This is an example of where religious arguments lean towards the side of laughable hypocrisy. Deists can always say "God did it," but the moment an atheist or questioner says that science can't explain such an event at the moment, the instant assumption is that the latter person in the argumen has lost. Well I'm going to leave it at this: some "miraculous recoveries" can be explained by biomedical science, others can't. It proves nothing, merely "makes you wonder." Erm... Explain? We're more developed than other organisms. Simple as that. Besides, many animals do have the ability to reason, though they can't always act on this reason. Dogs whimper for the return of their masters, apes are taught to solve simple puzzles: to say that humans are the only organisms that can reason is frighteningly ignorant. If this were to be a truly valid argument that he made, I'm sure it'd be pretty big news. The article is probably filled to the brim with bias as well if your religion teacher showed it to you.
So I totally feel bad that we didn't get to talk today. I missed you. ;-; Stupid freaking awards ceremony at my school taking up precious...
@Stardust- I dunno, people just volunteered for video effects, to I added it. xD I figure, why not? @The Fuk?- Awesome, I'll start practicing tonight. Sorry if my recording is kinda shoddy; I'll make it as high-quality as possible.
Clearly they were reading his post.
Just invited him and added him to the group description. Timezone would be helpful though, yes.
Guardian_Soul, when you see this, what's your timezone? Also, Terry, I'll do the lead guitar part if you wanna focus on bass. Whatever's better for you.
Oh good, Harriet's a guido now. God help us. =P Alright, so, I'm not a huge fan of taking a picture of yourself purely for the purpose of asking people how they think you look but... eh, I'm gonna be a whore today. Spoiler Apparently my webcam thinks smiling is for suckers. y/n to the beanie? I never bought one nor wore one before in my life, nor had I ever had any intention to, but when I saw this baby in Hot Topic, I realized that you can invert it and you get something so awesome that it can only be properly reacted to by my happy nerd face. Spoiler It's the Decepticon symbol, in case you can't see it clearly enough. So yea, I had to get this. So now I ask you, KH-V: am I worthy of wearing this beast?
I don't think I ever knew her to begin with. :v
I think we've agreed on Boulevard for the most part in that case. As long as there are no huge objections, I think we should go along with it. It'll be good since punk songs and the like don't get too much harder to play than that as far as each instrument's part goes. Also, edited your description, Trixter.
Haha, I get you. You must be like my brother then: forced to listen to A7X ALL THE TIME. :D Good to hear you appreciate Syn and Johnny though....
Boulevard actually sounds like a bit of a better idea, mainly because everyone could get involved with it without having to make stuff up. However if I can't find the part for rhythm guitar, I might have to either make up some kind of chord progression or just play the lead part an octave lower. :v
That'd be fine with me; I have a feeling a Kingdom Hearts-themed band would sound pretty pop-punk-ish anyway. Our synth and strings people would have to do a bit of improv, though.
'Kay, so my thoughts are we should agree on a song to cover as a group so we can see how we sound together before we start working on our own stuff. As a test of sorts, you know? Thoughts? EDIT: Got it, Spaztic. Added.
