HOME | DD
pitnerd — God's Not Dead...
[NSFW]
Published: 2014-05-12 18:39:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 4067; Favourites: 164; Downloads: 27
Redirect to original
Description
He just never existed. Ever./Pixelegion | /Pixelegion
Related content
Comments: 340
It doesn't matter how long you were a Christian or what type of school you went to. The Bible can easily be taken out of context by anyone. It happens all the time. That's why there's historical-cultural contexts and literary contexts.
Of course I agree with the Bible. I'm a Christian and I've done exegetical studies to try and understand it beyond what is written.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah I agree that it doesn't matter, my point of mentioning that is that I didn't take it for face value. I can get into an argument on why exegetical studies are really just ways to defuse serious issues with holy books of any sort, but I don't care enough to. My point is that telling you how to treat a slave, enforcing people to get murdered is not something a rational person should agree with. Especially the treatment of human beings on the basis of "god doesn't like it" tough shit lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't exactly care to get into a debate about it either, especially with someone who finds no meaning with exegetical studies. That doesn't mean historical-cultural and literal contests aren't important.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well why would any person get into an exegetical study? It's entirely meaningless and entirely subjective, it has the same importance on what people feel about the color red. It's not about historical, or cultural. It's about how a god has endorsed such things that you agree with and the only reason you agree with such barbaric stuff is because you feel entitled to it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Well why would any person get into an exegetical study? It's entirely meaningless and entirely subjective"
Of course it is, to someone who doesn't believe in God. To a Christian, understanding the Bible helps them draw closer to God. You don't believe in God, so of course it wouldn't make sense to do an exegetical study.
"It's not about historical, or cultural."
It is... Those people that wrote the different books of the Bible lived in different times and different places than us. Where and when the Bible was written influences what is in it. It is /hugely/ based on culture and history and an exegetical study points out those differences so we can understand them in our time and culture.
"It's about how a god has endorsed such things that you agree with and the only reason you agree with such barbaric stuff is because you feel entitled to it."
'Barbaric stuff'? As in? Also, no, it's not. Read my above statement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It isn't though because guess what? The Holy Bible is not written to be put into the context of the time period, it was literately meant to be the rule book of infinity, minus the new-testament due to the Christians not liking Judaic law and wanting to find a way around some of the issues the old testament had.
But lets say your right, are you saying God conveys his power in the form of what's acceptable in the culture? If so that goes against I don't know even having a book that was written and not kept up to date, especially hating on homosexuality, women and so on. It sort of defeats the concept of God being an all knowing being considering he would be the stem of morality rather than culture being being an influence to him. So why would he allow, endorse and seek action in relation to say murder, hatred, inequality and so on?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"It isn't though because guess what? The Holy Bible is not written to be put into the context of the time period, it was literately meant to be the rule book of infinity, minus the new-testament due to the Christians not liking Judaic law and wanting to find a way around some of the issues the old testament had."
This is not correct in any way. The Bible was written by different people at different times in different cultures. It is not just a rule book. It's a book of stories, a book of laws, and a book of love, among other things. Whether you believe the new testament is meant to be a part of it or not is irrelevant. Books in the NT have been proven to come from certain authors in certain time periods, like 1 and 2 Timothy were written by Paul in about 60 AD. The Synoptic Gospels were written by their respective authors--Matthew, Mark, and Luke--and are called Synoptic--which literally means "seen together"--because the events were seen together by the three.
"are you saying God conveys his power in the form of what's acceptable in the culture?"
I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I'll do my best to answer. Why would God need to convey his power in the form of what's acceptable in culture? God is objective. Culture is subjective. If God conveyed his power to what is acceptable in culture, then he wouldn't be God. On top of that, there wouldn't be sin if God was subjective. There wouldn't be a need for God if he was subjective.
"especially hating on homosexuality, women and so on"
You want to provide some verses for this hate so I can counter them?
"It sort of defeats the concept of God being an all knowing being considering he would be the stem of morality rather than culture being being an influence to him."
I'm wondering why you think God--the creator--should be influenced by cultures--a creation of his creation?
"So why would he allow, endorse and seek action in relation to say murder, hatred, inequality and so on?"
First of all, God does not endorse hatred. Our beliefs teach us, multiple times, to love. It's mentioned around 500-700 times in the Bible. Second, why do you think you--as a human--could ever understand God's plans? It states clearly in the Bible that God's plans are beyond our own. As a believer myself, I have faith in God that he keeps his promises, loves his children (even when they don't care to love or even believe in him), and his plans are for the good of his glory, which, in the end, is the ultimate good. Whether you believe or not is fully up to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The collection of books written by these people (most of the gospels considering we don't have original documentation or really any way to verify whether or not they were written by the proclaimed authors) were to be of God's intervention, will, or other concepts in relation to... well itself. You know the issues with synoptic gospels right? Not really wanting to get into them considering how easily concerning they can become when you know the issues of the accounts which wikipedia lists pretty well I believe.
Well I agree I don't know why God would give out orders, commands, rules, whatever that are in relation to the culture. That's why I don't get how apologists argue that all the bad stuff in the Bible are from the time period, they were ordered out by God. I actually disagree, I understand you have a definition of your God, but plenty of religious people I talked to actually think God would attest to our cultural influence. Meaning many religious people think God is okay with homosexuality for instance even if he wasn't in the past. As far as I'm concerned there is no sin, but how would there be no sin if God was subjective? Our laws are based on situational morality and they work just fine. In fact God works very well in situation based morality instead of objective morality as the Christians proclaim. For instance when murder is okay by God it's not a sin, but if we do it apparently it is. Then again we're in the field of how you define your God.
Women:
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord"
" I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing."
Homosexuality: (and apparently bestiality as well)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
Yes I understand your belief, I'm talking about the Bible which definitely different than what many Churches will teach and skip a few concepts as well. God does endorse hatred, inequality, racism, slavery, murder, genocide, infanticide and so on.
Yes I know what it states about our understanding, if it's beyond our understanding why do you believe? Why not just live in complete neutrality until his plans actually make sense, because so far (from our perspective) they don't. And if we can't learn about them he's a useless God to begin with especially when he's supposed to be the epicenter of morality, knowledge, and judgment yet he gets a free pass at being vague? No thanks lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"(most of the gospels considering we don't have original documentation or really any way to verify whether or not they were written by the proclaimed authors)"
Biblical criticism. Look it up.
"You know the issues with synoptic gospels right?"
www.gotquestions.org/synoptic-…
What issues?
"Not really wanting to get into them considering how easily concerning they can become when you know the issues of the accounts which wikipedia lists pretty well I believe."
I find it funny you source a website that can be easily edited by anyone. On top of that, you seem to say you "don't care to discuss" yet you continue on discussing. Either way, I have answers for you "unwillingness to discuss."
"I actually disagree, I understand you have a definition of your God, but plenty of religious people I talked to actually think God would attest to our cultural influence. Meaning many religious people think God is okay with homosexuality for instance even if he wasn't in the past."
If they were Christians who actually paid attention to their own sacred book, they'd know it's not okay because 1. It says so clearly in the Bible, 2. God is the same today as he was yesterday, and he will stay the same until Christ returns, which is also clearly stated in the Bible. Christianity has many factions. Not every "religious person" interprets its teachings correctly.
"Our laws are based on situational morality and they work just fine."
They do? Have you been outside recently? If our situational laws are fine, then explain all the hate in the world.
"As far as I'm concerned there is no sin, but how would there be no sin if God was subjective?"
God isn't subjective. He's objective. Why do you think we follow a sacred book as ancient as the Bible?
"For instance when murder is okay by God it's not a sin, but if we do it apparently it is."
"Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life" (Carm.org).
In Hebrew, which is what the Bible was originally written in, ratsach is the word for kill. God says not to murder, which is the unlawful taking of a life. But he justifies killing, as in a lawful taking of a life. This is the problem with looking at the Bible at face-value. You miss many things, even when you read it in English because that is not the original language.
carm.org/questions/you-shall-n…
""Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.""
This is to Eve, where the fall of mankind began. This isn't God showing hate toward women. This is God showing hate toward sin. On top of that, though her pains shall be increased, she is the one to bear life, and I'm not going to get into a pro-life/pro-choice argument here, but, though you may disagree, creating another life is kind of a big deal to be proud about. Also, see here: "A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world." John 16:21. Not just the Bible supports this, but science does as well. There is an endorphin within women that, after they give birth, they no longer remember their pain.
www.biblegateway.com/resources…
""But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.""
Where exactly is the hate against women in this verse? Just because the verse says "...and the head of the woman is the man"?
""Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.""
And here's where cultural and historical context comes in. In this book, Paul is addressing the church of Corinth, and in this culture, women were called to come to church with their head covered. The women of Corinth, however were abusing the principle that "in Christ, distinctions of sexes are done away with" by coming forward and prophesying when they shouldn't have been.
biblehub.com/commentaries/1_co…
biblehub.com/commentaries/pulp…
""Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord""
Where's the hate here?
"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing."
This is Paul speaking again, within the church. He's not showing hate toward women. Here, this shoudl have many answers for you: www.biblegateway.com/resources…
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
We are no longer under the Old Testament law. Therefore, homosexuals are not called to be executed. Some of "Christians" out there that believe we are still under the old law have killed homosexuals, and that's not right.
In any case, both of these sources will be of help to you:
carm.org/leviticus-18-22
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIw6ng…
Also, I'd just like to make comment about the fact that there are Christian homosexuals, too. They have given their lives to Christ and will not give into the temptations of the flesh.
"Yes I understand your belief, I'm talking about the Bible which definitely different than what many Churches will teach and skip a few concepts as well."
That's the churches' faults, not the fault of the Bible and its writers. The Bible was inspired by God, but people will misuse it and cherry-pick it in whatever way they please so it suits their needs. /THAT/ is why exegetical studies are important. So we teach what the Bible proclaim and don't spread lies like some churches have been. As I said before, not every "religious person" interprets God's word correctly.
"God does endorse hatred, inequality, racism, slavery, murder, genocide, infanticide and so on."
No, he doesn't.
"if it's beyond our understanding why do you believe?"
Because God calls his children to have faith.
"Why not just live in complete neutrality until his plans actually make sense, because so far (from our perspective) they don't."
I may not understand God's plans for me, but I trust him to, as he has promised, help me to prosper and not to harm me. I trust in his plans, even when they don't make sense.
And let me just as this: Whether it's about God or not, will you ever understand everything about your universe? No. You have to put faith in something in order to live, whether it's God or not.
"And if we can't learn about them he's a useless God to begin with especially when he's supposed to be the epicenter of morality, knowledge, and judgment yet he gets a free pass at being vague?"
Why is he useless just because we can't understand his plans? They're /beyond/ our understanding, meaning, we cannot hope to understand them, even if God came down, revealed himself, and told us his plans. He's not making a "free pass" at being vague. We literally cannot understand his plans for us. This is because of free will. He has given us free will to make our own decisions. This free will is because of love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I gave you one back!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you very much!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think the irony in all this "God exists" and "God never existed" stuff is that the majority of people from BOTH sides of the camp wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass! I also think that if aethiests supposedly have more common sense and logic, how come the world is so fucked up? It's not because of religion or lack of it! If aethiesm is so great, get out in the real world and prove it ... oh, I forgot, aethiests are too busy with their so-called superiority to actually contribute to something real in the world!
Me, I believe in God. Always have. I wasn't raised in a religious household, nor was I brainwashed into religion. I don't believe in religion at all. I've seen things with my own eyes that science cannot explain. I don't bother defending what I experienced, because people say, "bullshit," anyway. As one of my professors once said to me, "most people, don't want to know the truth." Take that for what it means.
Neither aetheism or religion is the answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
No delusions of superiority here. I don't think I'm a special spirit being inside a bag of flesh. I think I'm dust that can make art. Sometimes I make mean art in response to my fundamentalist upbringing. I make nice art sometimes. You cry like a pussy. Thanks for commenting!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No feelings of superiority here either. But I am curious, if you don't think that you're a spirit in a "bag of flesh," then what will happen to you when you die? What's your opinion on this? And, what if you're wrong?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So far as I can tell, nothing will happen. If you're asking me to speculate, I imagine my biological remains will break down due to entropy and be recycled into the great cosmic scheme of which I am not even worthy of being called a blink in. And what if I'm wrong about what? Which religion are you referring to? Because if you are only coming at this from a judeo christian perspective, then I could just as easily ask that juvenile and useless of a question about Islam, Hinduism and Karmic beliefs like Buddhism. Again, pointless, and not worth worrying about. I studied to be a pastor in seminary, and then and only then, when I finally read the bible all the way through, and many times over since, did I decide that, if there is a god, it's not that fucking asshole, abrahamic, misogynistic, evil, murderous, fuck up of the old and new testament, Yahweh. In any event, I was scared of crazy shit for many years and I'm tired of it. So now I produce mean, offensive, demonic art I know for a fact scares the shit out of my extended, crazy-ass pentecostal fuck up family. And I enjoy it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I meant it from your personal opinion. That's it. I appreciate the reply.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...just outta curiosity... who do you think that wrote the Bible: a bunch of narrow-minded self-reighteous pricks, or God?
I've studied theology for most of my life. I don't believe in, say, 75% of it...maybe more (I'm just guestimating). We all know that persons edited the book to control the fearful masses - and the establishment also wanted to keep those masses illiterate too. But what I'm getting at is that, as you and others stated, that people use religion to commit gross wrongs on others. I don't buy into that it's Gods fault. I compare it to a driver behind the wheel, who looses control of his vehicle, plows into a legally parked car, then blames the owner of that car for being there! Did God commit these crimes? No - but people love to blame everyone else but themselves for their actions. Sure, the Bible says that God punishes the wicked, but then people wonder why does God allow all this shit to happen, and then does nothing about it. But I still say that people have to take responsibility for themselves, not shift the blame whenever and however they can.
Again, this is how I look at things. What's your opinion?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Atheism isn't a group, it's not a collection of beliefs, or thoughts, it has no values, nothing. It simply is a default response to a claim/belief that does a god exist. Atheism is not great or bad, it's just default answer waiting for evidence of your god claim. So I don't get where you're coming up with this "atheism isn't the answer" "prove it" "how come the world's so fucked up" religion of many sorts, mainly Christianity claims to be able to make the world better, well good but if you believe the world is fucked up the majority of people in the world have religious backgrounds. Muslim, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and so on.
I don't believe the world is fucked up for one.
Also you don't bother defending what you experienced because you probably can't. Science can't explain a lot of stuff, that doesn't mean you attach unsupported notions on that thing, the very reason people believe in gods, and religious stuff is because at one point, and to this day to some things that we can prove with science, is that they don't know the answer and find it comfortable and easy to say "god did it"
Humanism is the thing you're looking at, and humanism has helped a lot of people, both religious humanists, and non-religious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I personally don't believe in religion, as per the "fear God" sort of crap. I don't believe in religion because, as an example, religions get offended when a person uses Jesus' name, and don't give them a cut of the money. I do believe in God, and always have since I was a very young child.
Yes, it would be an easy out to claim that I can't explain my life experiences. I can - but I don't bother wasting my time trying to explain something that other people aren't going to believe anyway.
I have had friends that are aethiests, they don't believe that God exists, but they believe that the devil does (how do they explain that one?!). In my experiences, aethiests don't want to believe, because they either don't want to accountable for their actions (not necessarily by a vengeful God, or whatever), or they're just in denial. But there again, aethiests say that the religious are in denial. True, it can swing both ways.
I also find it ironic that those who believe in scientific theories, before other facts. Aethiests say that God doesn't exist because he or she "hasn't shown him/herself." But, this is the typical response from aethiests. The signs are there if you look for them. But if you don't want to, you wont (which is part of the reason why I've always said that there are people in the world that wouldn't believe the truth even if it bit them).
I know as well as you do that people use religion to condone the attrocious behaviour that they have. That's one of the reasons why I don't believe in religion. I have no notions that homosexuality is wrong, or you have to wait for marriage for sex, etcetera. My belief is that we all can be good members of society, as long as we don't get caught up in BS dogma and hypocrisy.
And, no, I'm not a "Humanist."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because they don't think the devil is a god, I dunno sound like dumb cunts to me. Also, your experience means that you've been around ignorant people who happen to be atheist. I'm an atheist by choice of lack of evidence for the claims of any god, not just your god who has accountability. I can be a theist and believe in a god that's contrasting in everyway to your god that allows me to rape, kill, steal and so on. So the whole "Accountability" card is out the window. Denial has nothing to do with it, again I can claim you're in denial of reality, but does that get us anywhere? It's baseless and sad dude.
Scientific theories before facts? "In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations." -Notjustatheory.com Unless you're really confused on your own argument I think you're saying that we focus on theories and not facts... lol.
Evidence is demonstrated, if you think the signs are there present them and showcase them in a scientific field so we can evaluate them the best we can with our current knowledge model. If we can't it's not worth believing in, if our science is flawed and can't see god even if he's there again we shouldn't believe until our science is up to that because science is all we have to go by. Science is why you're on a computer, science is why you're starring into a monitor, art is a subset, or the otherway around I suppose of science, science is why you drive to work, science is why you know what time it is, science is how we operate. Science is not for atheism, nor theism it's for the observable reality we live in, and if it's flawed we can't just believe in the sake of knowing it's flawed. Yes I know, you're probably one of those people who can't tell reality from imagination. Not to discredit your beliefs in any manner, but when you have so much observable evidence going against many claims your, or anyone's holy book makes it's astonishing that people believe in all of it.
Yes religion is used by bad people to do bad things, but religion causes good people to do bad things because they think it's okay by some divine intervention.
You should be a humanist, what's wrong with you lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have no intention on changing or conforming to anyone else's expectations or damands. There's nothing "wrong" with me for what I believe. I wouldn't be a hater or prejudiced against you because you choose your path in life. I'm not offended by what you responded with. I'm saying that you've got yours, and I've got mine. Period.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then I believe you genuinely don't care about the truth and go with what you want to believe. You're going against the entire spectrum of how we obtain true knowledge by equating both beliefs as our own personal concepts. There is truth out there, are you willing to see it or are you just okay with not caring about what is proven to be true, just what people feel?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wrong. I do care about truth, not what people who don't have the mental capacity to even comprehend what it is that they boast.
Going with what they want to believe is exactly what aethiests do - not caring about anything unless it falls within their narrow ideas of what's true or acceptable to them. Every aethiest that I've ever known have always done the same thing: read and re-read the Bible to justify themselves, with how they think and act. They never ask themselves, "who wrote the Bible (Torah, etc), man, or God?" I'll give you an example: A long-time friend of mine said to me, "If I met Jesus, I'd beat the fucker! Nobody uses me!" But, despite that he always claimed that he allegedly studied the Bible, not once did I ever see him so much as touch one. Hence part of my point, I doubt that many aethiests have actually studied religion enough to have an intelligent discussion about it. They do what preachers do: take a single passage to make point of what they're preaching. People do the same with the U.S. Constitution: The "right" to bear arms, for example (they don't read the rest of it). It's always the same thing: get right to the point that they hate. God loves. Man kills (rapes, steals, etc.).
If being aethiest is what works for you, then do it. I don't care. It doesn't make any difference to me, because I have mine too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why do we care what atheists believe? Atheism isn't a dogmatic code based concept, it's simply just a default answer to a belief or claim. One thing only.
Okay... so why would it matter if people studied the Bible, or religion? The Bible nor religion is proof of a God. What atheists do to validate their arguments ride on their merits.
I know you have yours too, but I'm not talking about these terminologies or stupid ass personal experiences of what atheists do. I know for sure based on what you've said here that you don't care for the truth. If there's a God we need empirical evidence that we can observe and study, way before we start associating belief notions about a god.
I'm not okay with just going with feelings, or what I want to believe. I care about the truth of the observable universe and how and why things work like they do. If God happens to be at the steeple of these evident truths then good, but all the other baggage latched onto God such as he loves, and the bullshit of the Bible/Torah/Quran and so on it needs validated, and so far none of these holy books have been validated in what they claim about supernatural concepts.
So when you say it's what works for me, of course it's the default position to take when the lack of evidence is presented. If you have evidence present it, atheists may be this or that, but when actual scientific proof comes that a God of any sort exists they will be the first out of many to convert. Not the muslims, not the christians, not the jews, but the atheists because we aren't sitting on what we believe, we are sitting on what we're waiting for and that's an actual legitimate answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
highfalutin ambiguity =/= truth either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If neither aetheism or religion is the answer, then why are you religious, and what is the answer?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You obviously didn't get what I wrote. I'm not religious - but that doesn't mean that I don't/can't believe in God. As for "what is the answer?" I've never ever said, to anyone at all, that I have all the answers. But I do have many, and I'm still looking for the rest... just like everyone else is. Search for your own truths in life. If you're wrong, you're wrong. If you're right, you're right. No more. No less.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A friend at work keeps going on and on about this movie. I don't see what the huge deal is really.
There's also another one which ironically I noticed was playing at the same theatre. "Heaven's for real."
As an agnostic, I just don't think there's anyway of really knowing one way or another if God or Heaven are real. As much as I'd like there to be a loving creator and a better place after we die, I need evidence first. Although, I do believe a pantheistic sort of God might exist, and an afterlife/reincarnation might. But I have yet to see the evidence for the judeoislamicchristian God.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't like to box myself into a category. Christians and Muslims do that for me. Do I believe in a god or gods? No. Do I KNOW there is no god or gods. No. But I also don't KNOW there are no unicorns and leprechauns or fairies, but I do not believe in them. However, I'm not going to categorize myself as an aUnicornist, aLeprechaunest, aFairiest, etc. because that's fucking ridiculous. Just like the abrahamic judeo-christian bullshit I was made to say I believed growing up. Thanks for commenting!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree with you. Most people think I'm either just an atheist and one guy even called me a Satanist. (Seriously!)
I usually just say I have my own beliefs, but a lot of people think they need labels. If I described what I believed it would be a huge mouthful. Agnostic Atheist Pantheist Spiritualist Animist.
What sucked is when I was growing up, I actually did believe all the Christian lies and such. I've wisened up since then.
You're welcome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First time I heard about this movie I thought it was a joke. I'm an atheist, not an anti-theist, but this is seriously a movie based on a chain e-mail sent by Christian grandmothers. Why would you even do that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Finally someone says it! I smell a llama.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Recently watched the movie, love it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>