I, too, came from a religious background (although not an extreme one).
You had made a statement that you are less and less religious, but then spread corrupt, archaic and divided terminology around the world (seven times). The use of these terms might be offensive to some people, whether they are religious, or whether they are not religious.
Why are you creating division in society?
Instead, in future, you should refer to yourself and / or others simply as either religious or not religious. This is rather neutral, and should not be offensive to anyone.
There is no such thing as being partly religious, or unsure about one's religion. You are either religious or you are not religious, period.
The term which you had used, with the -ist suffix, is nonsensical. It purports that and assumes [incorrectly] that a deity actually exists. It means that, ' one who does not believe in something that does not exist'.
These -ists and -isms also contribute to division in society.
Please do not use -ists or -isms.
Thank you.
You had made a statement that you are a person who believes that an ancient anointing ceremony confers special or magical powers on certain people. What do you know about this ancient anointing ceremony? Is there any empirical evidence whatsoever that this is true? If so, then please provide the details.
You had also made a statement that, "My church is very friendly, positive, and accepting- to me, my church is proof that [archaic divided people] and religion aren't inherently bad." This is false pretense, and is misleading. In fact, a 'church' was originally a place where ALL the people could gather and meet, and these replaced civic buildings (town halls). Times have changed. They have since become very corrupt and divided.
Not one day has elapsed for the last two thousand years or so, where these archaic, divided religious people have not caused hatred, war and bloodshed.In fact, we are continuing to battle in several conflicts around the world, primarily over these archaic religious beliefs. It is often easy to blame 'someone else', but you, yes you my friend, are partly responsible for spreading this hatred around.
You had already made an admittance that your own father forced you (or manipulated you) into some of these religious beliefs against your own will. This sounds more like a totalitarian regime than anything else, not very friendly, positive or accepting.
You had also made a reference of [and alluded to the actual existence of] a generic deity. Which deity you are referring to?
You pretend that you are not very religious, but by your own words, you are still very religious.
Please be more careful with your words, in future.
Thank you.
How can you be certain that this nondescript deity is
I feel like I'm a mixture of being Christian and being agnostic
← View full post
You seem to be confused, I can help you.
I, too, came from a religious background (although not an extreme one).
You had made a statement that you are less and less religious, but then spread corrupt, archaic and divided terminology around the world (seven times). The use of these terms might be offensive to some people, whether they are religious, or whether they are not religious.
Why are you creating division in society?
Instead, in future, you should refer to yourself and / or others simply as either religious or not religious. This is rather neutral, and should not be offensive to anyone.
There is no such thing as being partly religious, or unsure about one's religion. You are either religious or you are not religious, period.
The term which you had used, with the -ist suffix, is nonsensical. It purports that and assumes [incorrectly] that a deity actually exists. It means that, ' one who does not believe in something that does not exist'.
These -ists and -isms also contribute to division in society.
Please do not use -ists or -isms.
Thank you.
You had made a statement that you are a person who believes that an ancient anointing ceremony confers special or magical powers on certain people. What do you know about this ancient anointing ceremony? Is there any empirical evidence whatsoever that this is true? If so, then please provide the details.
You had also made a statement that, "My church is very friendly, positive, and accepting- to me, my church is proof that [archaic divided people] and religion aren't inherently bad." This is false pretense, and is misleading. In fact, a 'church' was originally a place where ALL the people could gather and meet, and these replaced civic buildings (town halls). Times have changed. They have since become very corrupt and divided.
Not one day has elapsed for the last two thousand years or so, where these archaic, divided religious people have not caused hatred, war and bloodshed.In fact, we are continuing to battle in several conflicts around the world, primarily over these archaic religious beliefs. It is often easy to blame 'someone else', but you, yes you my friend, are partly responsible for spreading this hatred around.
You had already made an admittance that your own father forced you (or manipulated you) into some of these religious beliefs against your own will. This sounds more like a totalitarian regime than anything else, not very friendly, positive or accepting.
You had also made a reference of [and alluded to the actual existence of] a generic deity. Which deity you are referring to?
You pretend that you are not very religious, but by your own words, you are still very religious.
Please be more careful with your words, in future.
Thank you.
How can you be certain that this nondescript deity is