For those saying Hulk would win, you're forgetting that Aang makes friends so easily, it's ridiculous. Aang would befriend Bruce, so it would be very rare that he would 'Hulk' out. And for those times that he did? Aang is a mediator as the Avatar. He doesn't need to do anything but use airbending to avoid Hulk's attacks while he 'talks him down'.
Aang would win, no contest.
...Actually...
From what i've seen, Catholics promote idolatry and other things that go contrary to what the Bible teaches.
As for Mormons, they consider Joseph Smith to be higher than Christ, that "God" is not the only (nor the first) god in existence, and that someday they will become gods themselves and get their own planet to populate with their spirit children.
Ohhhh.... but they're Christian, clearly.
I'm not catty if that's what you're implying, hon. And I really don't care beyond giving you information. Besides, you asked. It's common courtesy, not like I offered the info out of the blue.
Also if cat is really, really your first guess, then I'm completely justified in my views.
No. That would require me to give a shit about humanity as a whole. Personally I think you guys are about as far advanced as you're going to get. You'll kill the planet off before long... or just make it so you can't live here anymore.
I'm a therianthrope. So while I have a physically human body, and my mind is mostly human due to biological influences, my essence is that of an animal. Also I really don't give a shit if you believe that or not.
As far as the 'act of reproduction for the sake of continuing the species', I would agree that homosexuality would be unnatural in that very strict definition. Is it actually wrong? I don't think so, and as human beings we do a lot of 'unnatural' things anyway. I mean think back to the last time you flipped a light switch.
No, it is advertised as a form of Christianity. But if you take the very core of what Christianity is and use it as a lens against the Roman Catholic doctrines, you will find that much of what the RCC teaches is downright heresy, sugarcoated to seem as if it's 'acceptable' to god. It's much the same tactics employed by the Mormon church, who are very, very much not Christian (despite people's idiocy in accepting them as such).
Don't you guys get tired of doing these debates? It's like you need them to stroke your ego or something.
Far as a god or gods go, I'm not certain. But pretty sure Atheism isn't the right thing, as well. Mainly since I exist, and yes that is a total fallacy and I don't care if you call me on it.
Fats, eh?
But you can't deny that the bible says to obey the laws of the land, where applicable.
Is there any reason not to obey laws such as those against murder, etc? That's not a purely biblical thing, btw, so don't bother using that for your evidence.
Idk what MSM is. I also don't build my identity around my sexual drives. I said 'sexual identity' instead of 'sex life' or 'sexuality'. So yeah.
Also I agree that homosexuality is a choice, for the most part. There may be biological factors, however.
I think if anything is unclear, it probably wasn't well thought out to begin with or it's trying its damned hardest to be obscure and vague. Both are meaningless (except in such cases as art and poetry, I guess, but even then there's some clarity to that).
Clarity is important in a lot of things, if not most/all things.
I have more freedom to say what's on my mind, and my brain fires in a different way when I type as opposed to when I use my verbal communication, allowing for more complete thoughts and introspection, as well as self-editing. I can actually think a lot more before I speak, and correct myself far easier this way.
Also, I tend to wear different masks for different situations (as does anyone, but I do it more often). Internet is just another mask to me.
Well, as long as we're entertaining fantasy ideas, and since it doesn't prohibit it, I would change it so that I could change two things in addition to that first change (otherwise it creates a loop). Then I would change myself and a good portion of the population into my ideal species/whatever. I would then change it so that those remaining humans, as well as the remnants of the human legacy such as factories, cars, etc (basically all human civilization) was erased. Not killed or destroyed, simply erased.
I believe then a balance between nature and this new species would be achieved. Or at the very least, I'd have given the Earth another chance. Similar to parasite removal, you see.
Maybe there is or isn't an exception where I would support AN abortion (but not abortion as a concept or ideal). I can't say I support Abortion, no matter what, however. I mean that's like asking me "do you support murder" then giving me a self-defense scenario. It just doesn't mesh.
Oh, as far as the r word goes (let's not use triggers, people), I don't support an Abortion in that case. The mother should not exact revenge on the child. Perhaps, put it up for adoption if you must, but killing an innocent because of someone else's crime? Only a monster does that.
It's rather dishonest to boost your own 'yes' answer to look good. It's also intellectually dishonest to have 'it is a sin' in the 'no' answer as well as the yes answer, so this instantly becomes a Loaded Question fallacy, or Limited Choice as it were.
So I'll put this option up with the distinction that I simply agree that Gay Marriage should be legal, discarding any notion of sin/not sin out the window in this context.
Also, saying 'gay marriage' is a sin isn't proof. Neither is stating hearsay. You either have facts and evidence to back up these kinds of claims, or you don't make them.
Smartphones are actually dumbing us down. Why read when you can just use your smartphone to look up information? Why look both ways across the street when you have to text your BFF ASAP (I have seen this happen). It's appalling how many people on a given day of classes I see with their heads bent over their smartphones, instead of looking where they are going or even paying attention to the lectures. I can only imagine what the drivers are doing.
Also, I don't own a cell phone and I'm getting by just fine.
This option should just be a 'No'. You limit the choice by saying 'there is no antichrist'.
In the sense of the argument (and biblical lore), Satan isn't a part of the trinity at all. He's not even a god. The trinity is God (Father), Jesus (Son), and the Holy Ghost (who is not Satan).
Unless, of course, you are arguing from the Mormon perspective in which Satan and Jesus are brothers. In which case, I'm going to sit here, point my finger, and laugh.
I don't see why not. Most gay people are completely normal. We're only different from heterosexuals in the sense of their sexual identity, just as different 'races' are only really different (outside of cultural upbringing) because of the color of their skin, though that's not an identity you can really hide or deny and in no way is it my intention to trivialize it.
Well, I disagree because while it might not be a religion in the sense of the word, I do believe it's a faith many people ascribe to in order to deny any supernatural element they hear about (true or not).
It takes a lot of faith to believe in nothing, in my honest opinion. And before you go 'IT'S NOT A FAITH BLARGH', faith is merely a belief. While I'm implying faith here to be something of a religious nature, faith itself does not have to be religious. After all, faith is simply "complete trust or confidence in someone or something", as stated by the dictionary itself. I see nothing of a religious nature in that statement.
Now, having said all that, a lot of Atheists I've argued with online cling to Atheism as if it were a religious institute or faith, claiming to be scientists when they do not even consider their opponent's view. I thought science was a method of observation, not a vehicle for complete denial in anything you dislike.
Let us assume that Biblical account is correct (this is for those who don't believe the Bible is accurate/true/whatever, so we're assuming).
I don't believe, in this case, that it's so much an election of the Pope as it is a head of 'the church', and in the time they lived in. That is, I don't think we should have kept electing the people we call 'Popes', as it were, and giving them such power when the entire church body should be the governing factor, contributing as parts of a whole instead of being passive to the whole thing. It breeds corruption, giving a single man power over the hearts and minds of millions or more people.
On a second point, I don't believe Catholicism is anything close to resembling Christianity. So I suppose I'd be saying that Catholicism takes what it likes out of the Bible and twists it, ignoring the rest. As for things that aren't biblical, such as the saints and talking to them like you would God, I think they either make it all up as they go or they misinterpreted something in the Bible. So, make of that what you will, but I see no 'love' in the Catholic Church that would denote is as Christian.
I can't accept these points, really. Not because I do or do not believe in God or a god; it just seems like it's going off on a tangent. How does a theory for Creationism involve communication between Man and God again? The last time I read Genesis, God created everything first before doing any sort of communicating with Adam. So why should it factor in as a point for creation?
I think the real argument isn't about Creationist Theory, but Christianity as a whole and your burning desire to prove it wrong. More or less.
You're obviously trolling. No one is this stupid... no one educated is this stupid...
...Fuck, I can't keep a straight face. People are far more stupid than this on a GOOD day.
Just because an option is under religion, it doesn't make it a religion by itself. If given a choice of yes or no to a question, both answers are not automatically 'yes' or 'no'. They are their own choices unified by a common theme. Atheism is a 'hard no', in a sense, to any religious identity other than 'there is no god, etc'. Agnosticism gets a little more confusing to me but it's still not a religion. I guess it might be the 'maybe' option? Hell if I know.
If you still insist upon this foolishness, well, that's your own issue. But you're going to look like an idiot to everyone, and will convince no one. Though I still think you're trolling and won't give a shit about any of this, so whatever.
The fact is both genders are inequal; however, men do not feed their young through their pectorals, for starters. Both genders are different, but that's not always a bad thing. We are never going to achieve 100% equality on every single thing, since there will always be differences between the two.
So I don't think women should be allowed to walk around topless, even if they wanted to. At the same time there are many places of business and such where men have to wear a shirt, as well, so we men don't exactly have free reign wherever we please either.
More than willing to debate on a debate site. What you are describing, however, is the equivalent of bashing my head against a wall, repeatedly, with no end. I'm not willing to do that. If this were a debate, both of us would be quite willing to consider the other's viewpoint. What you are doing is challenging me to 'prove you wrong' or some such nonsense, with no consideration to my own viewpoint.
Therefore, we have nothing to discuss.
Yeah I hate when I ask for proof, and people tell me to read a book instead. Whether or not it answers the question, I asked you to do it. As far as 'personal experience' goes, I have plenty of it. But I can see this is going to be a waste of time. Forget that I asked you to do a simple thing, in which you replied with arrogance and contempt.
I really can't agree with your definition that it's only caused as a direct consequence of a mental health condition. I'd even call it a logical fallacy, though I'm not sure what the name of it would be. My point is, the logic simply doesn't follow.
