Heaven in a Browser

December 2, 2009 -

An Atlanta-based videogame development company has announced plans to create a virtual online faith-based community.

Universe of Faith (UOF) is being developed by Entertainment Arts Research, Inc. and is billed as the first of its kind, with plans to be a “catalyst of change” for the online Christian community. The $2.5 million project is expected to launch in the first quarter of 2010.

Entertainment Arts Research President Jonathan Eubanks, dubbed the “brainchild” of UOF, added, “My goals for creating Universe of Faith are to bring high production value to faith based media offerings, remove the taboo from discussing faith based matters and issues, use modern technology to innovate on missionary and ministry outreach and create an experience that is engaging and fun.”

Browser-based, UOF promises to be an “intriguing venue for social networking,” with a “diverse and immersive experience for users to create a life beyond the tangible world.”

The project is being developed in conjunction with Legacy Group Global, an advertising agency that specializes in working with non-profits and ministries.

On its website, Entertainment Arts Research states that its goal is, “to become the worldwide leader in video games that serve the African-American, Latin American, Asian and Caribbean markets by 2010."


Comments

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Just wait until they ban their first homosexual from the site...

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Yeah I can see it now, Lawyer slamming the site claiming in his church the story of Sodom is different and Jesus and his father the Lord God Barrack Obama think all men should marry equally.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

You know, sometimes I really do wonder about your mental stability when you start dragging Political views into this.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

His mental stability is non-existant.

He's the kind of person where, If I met him in person, I wouldn't get within 30 feet of him. I can see him as the crazy guy who hasn't showered in weeks screaming at people while he pisses in the corner of a city bus.

Of course, he'd be screaming about how the whole reason he's releiving himself on the poor little old lady in the handicapped seat is because the Lord God King Guy Obama is ruining the country, and that Liberals made him do it.

 

@DrKefka: Does it feel good that you've become the butt of a joke in this community? You've totally become that guy where everyone says "Pay no attention to him, he's just nuts."

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Well, frankly, since the Church sees Homosexuality as a sin, I would probably argue that if they ban Homosexuals, they have to ban ALL sinners from thier site. Since not one, single human in this world, including the Pope, is without sin, the site would have to ban EVERYBODY. Because if you are going to ban ONE sinner, you have to ban them all.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

What is this "Church" you speak of? I was unaware that Christianity had united under one banner and had formalized their beliefs across the board.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Then you should be speaking out, very very publically, against all those religious leaders who reference the whole of Christianity and the one Church, including but not limited to the Vatican itself.

When a vote in favor of a legislation that is supported based on religious beliefs is won, the argument is always that "Christians are the majority" and that it was "Christians who won the vote".  YOUR vote has been hijacked if you don't agree with those Christians who have won that vote because those who won the vote just lumped YOU into their winning tally by using the broad religion of Christanity.  They are, in fact, implying that you are NOT Christian if you voted or at least disagreed with their opinion.  And since THEY won the vote, THEY must be the majority, not the miniority that you claim.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

We're getting closer to the heart of the problem. A big issue is that America only has two political parties. A Christian has to choose between two parties, and each party has its own problems. A tolerant Christian can find himself in a tight spot since, no matter which way he votes, he's going to end up supporting a candidate who goes against his beliefs in serious ways. We need more parties so we can accurately represent the beliefs of both religious and non-religious people.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

The problem with that is that they make SUCH a big damn deal over a candidiate's religion/belief system. You will never hear a candidate say "I'm an (Atheist,Pagan,Wiccan,Muslim,etc)" because if they do, people will spend so much time,energy,and money saying that "Such and such cannot represent you/us because of his/her beliefs" That you'll never find out what the person stands for or wants to DO in government.

Am I a religious person? Yes. But I believe that unless someone asks about it, it's none of their buisness.

 

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

That doesn't apply to voting on propositions (such as Proposition 8 in California).

Even so, I'd prefer to eliminate the party system altogether.  It has been the power of the two main parties over the election process, even in the media, that has prevented the US citizens from being able to properly vote, or even research, all the candidates that actually run for President or other positions.  In the last election, there were actually over 30 Presidental Candidates.  Only a couple that weren't part of the two main parties had any exposure to the US citizens.  The rest were unknowns.  Quite frankly, I don't see those individuals as having lost the election.  I see them as being DENIED the opportunity to lose.  Simply because the power structure of the two party system prevented the general population from being able to equally compare all the options, even against the two main parties.  Heck, even a Pagan ran for President last election.  I suspect he would have lost if he had been equally viewed with all candidates, including McCain and Obama.  But he was DENIED the opportunity to actually lose. 

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Even if you elimited the two main parties, they would reform within a few decades.

The problem is mathmatical.  A two party system is a natural consequence of how our voting is structured.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

 It's not a problem in many European countries, though. We could adjust our Congressional voting to be proportionally representative and  therefore more friendly to a large number of small parties. It wouldn't necessarily fix the problem with electing the president, but it would allow more diversity in Congress. Of course, we'd need to get a change through Congress that would hurt the power of the two major parties, so it probably wouldn't happen easily.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Not to mention the human mind is hard-wired for dichotomies.

Black/White, Good/Evil, Dem/Repub..

We as a species tend to separate things like that relatively often. It's actually quite interesting.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Only in countries that have a Abrahamic background.

The dichotomy is pretty heavily socially embedded, but in general it comes from social constructs rather then neurological.  The Abrahamic religions (esp Christianity and Islam) have dichotomy built into their mythos.  Other religions may or may not.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

True, it didn't apply to Prop 8, but that also wasn't only Christians. The Church of Latter-Day Saints was a big player in that.

I would prefer to at see a proportional representative government to what we have. Then we could at least get members of numerous parties in Congress and have more parties that better represent individual beliefs.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

What's proposition 8, and what do we Mormons have to do with it?

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Wow...

Either you are a troll, or you are truly ignorant of Modern political history. Either way, I'm done treating you like an intelligent human being, becuase, clearly, you aren't.

Prop 8 was the voter initiative that recently overturned California's Gay Marriage law. Your church leaders were the spearhead of the movement to restrict the rights of hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings through misinformation, hatred, bigotry, and lies.

The mormon church was the biggest organizer and fundraiser for that initiative, and were so succeessful in spreading thier hateful message across California that they convinced voters to TAKE AWAY rights given to thier friends and neighbors.

Personally, Mormons are about as sickening as Catholics when it comes to spreading Bigoted Hate to it's followers.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

*sigh*  Valdearg, let me give you a clear picture of what you're doing.  A black man shoots a person.  Does that make all black people bad? 

 

Also does ignorance make one stupid?  Just because I know not of a law that has little to nothing to do with me, does that make me stupid?  It seems to me that you are attacking people who disagree with you, much like others are saying that religious groups do.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Race is Not Equal religion

You cannot choose your biological race

You can choose your religion

A better argument would have been

If a Plumber shoots a guy are all plumbers evil?

You can choose to be a plumber like you can choose your religion.

but then argument there would be does the profession have the same belief and value system that religion does? which I dont think it does.

So then the Best argument would be

If a Lobbyist Shoots a guy are all Lobbyist evil?

You can choose to be a lobbyist like you can choose your religion

You can choose to promote the lobbyist belief like you can choose to promote religious beliefs.

Then arguement becomes can you generalize all lobbyiest and generalize all religious people the same?

 


I am a critical thinker not a dumb ass inbred conservative or a jackass liberal

Pedophiles are the new Nazi / Communist. Labeling someone a Pedophile will get them blacklisted even though there is no evidence.

Murder is not a crime when done in self defense, a time of war, or when done by court order (death penalty). People cry murder when fetus are aborted. How about when the mother could die? The mother is 13 years old? The mother was raped? The child is a product of incest? Is foster care really the best answer for children who's parents cant take of them? How many children actually end up in foster care when their parents are dead beats?

A 14 year old is child when they have sex but is an adult when they commit murder?

Re: Heaven in a Browser

*sigh*  I went with a race for a better picture.  More has a group of people that share a common characteristic or (in the case of religion) belief.  But if you want I can make another example.

 

A plumber rips you off, does that mean all plumbers are con artists? 

 

Or even better.  A gamer goes and shoots up a school.  This must mean all gamers are nutjobs.

 

I was making a statement about absolutes.  Just because one part of a large group of people are nuts does not mean that all of them are nuts, yet some people like to caterogize them as that way.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I've already made it pretty clear in other posts that when I say "Mormons" and the "Mormon Church" I am referring to the institution and it's leaders. Now, some of that does trickle down to it's followers, since by following and donating money to the Mormon Institution, you are enabling thier hate and bigotry, therefore, the followers are plenty guilty in the matter as well.

You may not be an outwardly evil person. You may not physically practice hate. However, if you follow a church that does, you are enabling it, and you are just as deserving of ridicule as the leader spewing hate from the pulpit daily.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

You truly are a sad little person.  You speak out against churches attacking others for their ways of life, yet on this forum that is exactly what you're doing.  Most of the people here who are religious don't hate gays, don't support the vatican, so on so forth, yet you call them insane, stupid, and so on.  A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

You see, It's my opinion that there is something fundamentally wrong with believing in a crazy story without any evidence to support it.

I tried to make it clear that I wasn't completely judging people on whether or not they were religious. I think that particular ASPECT of thier life is crazy, but I know there's more to most people than thier religion.

I also made it clear that when I attack religion, I am attacking the LEADERS and the INSTITUTION that makes it ok to hate people who don't follow the rules your religion sets out for you. The only thing I added to that was to call out those who would enable these hateful leaders to continue to lead, and there is truth to that statement. If you continue to practice in a religion where the leaders and the institution carry hateful and bigoted attitudes towards those who don't follow the same rules they do, you are just as responsible for the hate as those who would practice it.

Finally, I'd assert that I am among the persecuted, here. I am part of the group YOUR church hates. I am part of the group YOUR church is attempting to silence and eliminate. I am part of the group YOUR church is attempting to discriminate against and prevent us from achieving equal rights.

YOU are enabling them to do that. YOU are the persecutor. I am the persecuted. It's not the other way around, nor will it ever be. To use the Pot and Kettle saying is to imply that we are on equal ground, when it comes down to it, and that is invariably false. Until we are no longer being persecuted by YOU and your religion, I won't stop bashing people like you, because it's WRONG for you to discriminate against people like me, and I won't hesitate to say it every time.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Actually Ratros is right. It takes two to tango buddy! So i.e. if you do evil & ratros does evil then both are bad. A good ex. for the pot calling the kettle black comment. & second, I agree w/Ratros, maybe not hsi religion, but him. It sounds to me since you are saying you are persecuted & so is Ratros so am I & everyone else on this forum that is going against each other b/c of persecution. So it is the other way around. Religious people are getting bashed for their beliefs as well as people like you & others that don't believe are getting bashed for not believing. So Valdearg you are in the wrong to be telling Ratros that. You are in the wrong mindset. You are belittling him b/c of his beliefs.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

1.  What are you being persecuted against?  You should be more clear on this fact.  You speak of persecution, and mention gay advocacy, does that mean your gay?  I don't see anyone persecuting anybody else here, except maybe you for the way you are attacking those who are religious.

 

2.  Don't throw out words like YOUR and YOU.  You can't say that it's your church since there are many of us of many different religions and beliefs.  You should also know that many religions have different sections and are not all grouped together. 

 

3.  You called people crazy for their beliefs.  That's judging somebody no matter how you try to sweeten it.

 

4.  Believe it or not, you are on equal grounds these days, and a lot of people (except for the religiously crazy) are against the vatican. 

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Uh, LDS ARE Christians.  Just as much as Baptist, Catholic, etc are.

And, of course, when I'm referring to religion, I'm including other religions as well.  It's not focused only on Christians, although, in the US, the claim

And, of course, there have been many other Propositions and legislation along these lines.  Proposition 8 was just an example.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Depends who you ask. Many Christians don't consider the LDS to be Christian because they have some major doctrinal deviations from most other protestant groups.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

It was a generalized comment directed that the majority of Christian beliefs. Homosexuality IS a sin in the VAST majority of Christian beliefs, and it is accepted that a Human cannot live a completely sinless life, so my comment still applies.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

According to Religious Tolerance .org, there are over 30,000 sub groups of Christianity.  Obviously, a great many are going to have contridictary beliefs in small or even large ways.  And, of course, this is just a Christian site.

So they will really need to be specific in what beliefs they will accept so that those who are Christian but don't share their beliefs will know they will be treated with bias and probably banned because the site owners have no intelligent counterarguments to even the Christians who will have opposing viewpoints.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I'm not arguing but for clarification. I'm assuming by "Sub-groups" they are counting seperate Congragations? Like the Chruch of Christ a half-mile down the road is one, and the one in the next town over is a seperate sub-group, even if they are under the same "Umbrella"

  Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

LFG Satan, lvl 28 Minister.

Seriously though, I could see this being really fun if it's an actual game, but for my definition of a fun game, they would probably have to make a few changes from what I've seen of it. If it's just Second Life, blah.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

This is just a flame war waiting to happen. A bunch of uninformed teenage "atheists" are going to get in the game and start flaming a bunch of uninformed teenage "Christians," and the entire thing will devolve into a mass of uninformed morons spewing garbage about something they know nothing about... kind of like the rest of the Internet.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

LOL, sounds like the actual situation on the entire interwebz.

My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Heaven in a Browser

You mean those who would offer opposing views to an influential segment of society that openly, based on their religion, opposed Anti-Abuse (Anti-Bullying) legislation successfully, though temporarily, simply because they claim that such legislation denies their religious freedom of committing verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse against others, most notably children as that was who the legislation was meant to protect?

You mean those who win a majority of the votes in various proposition votes to deny whole groups of citizens Equal Rights, despite those having demanded such a proposition not even having a grievance in the first place?  Such as the inclusion of contractual unions being recognized for individuals of the same gender, though such recognition under a NEUTRAL (as opposed to a Theological Dictatorship) legal system would deny NO ONE of religious freedoms or any other Right as an individual whatsoever.  Thereby making the claim that the Right to Petition the government over a grievance not applicable as there is NO grievance in existance.

You mean those who, at the self-proclaimed moral seat of religious integrity, the Vatican, who knowingly and intentionally covered up not only sexual abuse by religious leaders for decades, but continue to aid in cover ups of verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse by religious authorities at various religious schools around the world, as was shown earlier just this year in Ireland?

You mean those who worked to create the ideal of "Community Standards" as a foothold into depriving citizens of their First Amendment Rights?  In the beginning, it was supposedly meant to set regulation on very clearly Adult material, but, as was also clearly planned, was expanded to, even through mere threat, to dictate even the most innocent of various media materials.  From books, to radio shows, music, movies, etc.  This so-called "Community Standard" was intended to justify eventually expanding into a "Theological Dictatorship".  While not every case is handled in the courts, it's been shown that just the mere threat of a violation of "Community Standards", even for the most innocent product or statment. 

Don't give me that nonsense about not understanding religion.  I understand it all too well.  From promotoing lies and deciet and misinformation to teaching bigotry and hate to children, who, more than anything, learn that ANYTHING that someone else shows as different makes that different person inferior and abuse is therefore justified.  Even if the religion only teaches that specific differences make the believer superior, the child tends to widen that to ANY difference from their in-crowd groups.  Interestingly enough, when adults support that behavior, it's the victim who is identified as anti-social or sociopathic.  But, in fact, it's those who commit the acts of abuse that are the true anti-socials and sociopaths.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I'm sick, so I'm not even going to clarify myself.  Nightwing, the loudest are always the easiest to hear.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Well, I think you just proved my point by demonstrating exactly what happens when anyone mentions religion on the Internet...

Did you even read my post or the stuff you just posted? You just did exactly what I said would happen in the online community. You come in here and stereotype every religion person based on the behaviors of the ones who happen to get media attention, and you manage to ignore every single good or helpful thing religion has ever contributed to the world. On top of that, you demonstrate no understanding of the religion itself; you merely provide a one-sided list of the things certain people have done. Come on, you're better than that, Nightwing.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

"certain people"

The ones who are winning the votes on those propositions.  Propositions which should have never existed in the first place.

The ones who actively affect legislation, like those I mentioned.

The ones in authority, such as the Vatican, who cover up the overwhelming abuses of individuals, including children.

No, I'd say it's YOU who is ignoring what's going on in society.  If it's true that the majority are "good", then where are they?  If the majority are so overwhelming, why aren't they standing up to groups like the Vatican and denouncing them sufficiently to either gain control over them or erradicate them from the religious community?  Phelps alone may have a small voice, but there are plenty in other segments of the religious community that support similar beliefs.

Perhaps that majority of "good" religious folk are staying silent.  Not only leaving the "bad" religious community to receive the media attention but also to leave them with the power to legislate and dictate, doing the harm to society as a whole.  One has to wonder if that makes the "good" religious folk all that "good" after all.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000

is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Or perhaps the news knows that the "bad" religious community running around with the "God hates fags" signs make for a better story than the ones giving away free meals on Thanksgiving. They're not silent or passive; they're just not as sensational and newsworthy as the psychos.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Again, you only reference the news.

I also mentioned those that have more of a direct impact such as those affecting the government through legislation or blocking legislation and those in religious authority, such as the Vatican which has covered up a great many acts of abuse in the name of religion and advocated a great many acts in the name of religion.  That's far more than just being heard in a news story.  That's actually writing or advocaing "law", whether religious doctrine or what is supposed to be secular NEUTRAL legal systems in government.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

So you are naming off the Vatican what other religious groups are there then that are bad? B/c I would like to know. I don't watch much TV b/c it is way toooooo bias. I am on the net a lot & get my news from internet. I am good too & I will stand up for what I believe in, but when I do, all hell breaks loose & I get a lot of crap from aetheists or non believers or people that believe in the "big bang theory" which I laugh at them. I seriously do.....lol LMAO! So basically the good people are damned if they do & damned if they don't.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I name the Vatican for their acts in the name of their religion, not merely for their religion.

And when defining religions as "good" or "bad" solely on their beliefs, it's an issue of preception.  One person's "good" is another's "bad".

But I label a religion as "bad" when they commit actual bad acts or support actual bad acts in the name of their religion.

From my perspective, no true, honorable, ethical, intelligent "God", or Supreme Being, would advocate commiting acts that, to varying degrees, amount to verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse of others.  Nor would any such being advocate covering up such acts.  Nor would such a being consider "morality" to include lying to and deceiving others.

Yet, from the preceptions of those who DO believe that such a being would advocate such acts, everyone else is "bad" and their beliefs are "bad".

So, from the standpoint of religion, whose is correct?

The site in question is Christian in nature.  The Vatican has passed itself off, and more to the point has been ACCEPTED as, the moral authority for Christianity, not merely Catholicism.  Typically, everything trickles down from them as it applies to Christianity.  We've seen that as it applies to Baptists, for example.  When deciding who is, or who is not, appropriate for reaching certain levels within the hierarchy.

Yes, other religions do have their own issues.  The Muslim religion, for example, has its own problems.  Not only in preception, but in power when it comes to government enforcement of beliefs.  We've seen how other religions have negatively affected government enforcement and legislation in just the recent year.  An issue of a woman having reported rape versus a claim of marital infidelity.  The issue of a naming of a Teddy Bear.  And there are other religions which have been known to advocate a number of abuses against others in the name of their religion.

But, here in the US, the most noted religion is Christianity.  And it is that religion which has been used to deny citizens their Rights, and even justify various abuses against others.  And those justifications have not only come from the citizens of the US and politicians in the US, but from external sources as well, including, but not limited to, the Vatican.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I see your point on what you said about this:

And when defining religions as "good" or "bad" solely on their beliefs, it's an issue of preception.  One person's "good" is another's "bad".

But I label a religion as "bad" when they commit actual bad acts or support actual bad acts in the name of their religion.

But when you said: From my perspective, no true, honorable, ethical, intelligent "God", or Supreme Being, would advocate commiting acts that, to varying degrees, amount to verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse of others.  Nor would any such being advocate covering up such acts.  Nor would such a being consider "morality" to include lying to and deceiving others. 

This I can understand a lot of people thinking this in their own opinion. But in my religious beliefs, I have found that not all people have God in their lives. Which is true, b/c they of course murder, rape, molest, commit adultry, fornification & more. Some say that they have done these acts to people & yet still believe in God & Jesus......but in my opinion that is between God & that person what they do. I have no right to judge them & I won't ever do it. Will i want to judge them? Hell yes! But not my place to judge. But I do believe in the devil & evil & good & light & darkness......however you want to say it. I do believe that the bad or evil has gotten ahold of the bad people that commit crimes & either haven't found God or doesn't want to. I can't change them. They have to be willing to change themselves.

Yet, from the preceptions of those who DO believe that such a being would advocate such acts, everyone else is "bad" and their beliefs are "bad".

I don't think this is true though. It is your opinion you are thinking this. Other people may think it true, but since you say that. I have a story now. My dad was in the VA hospital about 6 months ago, now in nursing home, which to some people means the end of the road. At the time of being in the hospital, he had tunes down his throat & tubes in his arms & some in his legs, b/c of course all the medicine. I was praying to God about it a lot. I would hope that NOT any of my family would be in the hospital & NOT have a good relationship w/my dad half my life, I tried to have one w/him in the hospital room in a short time. My brother at the time was in Fort Stewart, GA & the Red Cross had contacted him. Well it was weird how he was contacted to see out father. The docs told me that I should call them & tell them to call my brother only if my dad got worse. I said ok. I told my mom & my friend at the time that was w/me to support my family. & my dad did get worse to where he had a 103 degree fever. There was a lot of praying to God before that moment & the day he got into the hospital. Well my mom told me he got worse, she said she had to call my bro to tell him too. & she told me to call the Red Cross to have my bro come home. I never did & forgot to b/c I was tired from the stress & making the decisions for my father. Well the next day my bro showed up in the room w/his best friend & I broke down & cried. My mom & my friend were there & my aunt & btw my uncle is a preacher too, he was there & there was a hospital minister that asked my age & my brothers age. We told him. He said we were very young for this to happen to our father. We told me we knew. So he prayed w/us. His prayer brought everyone in the room to tears, we held hands praying & my dad started crying. The nurses gave him a sedative for the pain & his eyes had this goop on them & yet he was crying. I asked why. My friend said it's b/c everyone in the room is praying for him. He was being a funny smartass tho, but it turned out nice. & my mom asked me if I called the docs to tell the Red Cross for my bro to come home. I said no, I didn't. My mom said that she heard my voice saying that I called the docs to tell them to tell the Red Cross for my bro to come home. I still said no. She was dumbfounded. She she compared phone calls made out to my friends phone then to my phone. They said you didn't make the phone call then, who did? I said idk. She saw that my friend & my mom called each other, but not calling her to let her know, b/c I never did. & now I know why. It was a miracle & we think it was an angel that called & sounded like me to tell the docs to tell the red cross to tell my bro to come home. & now I know why an Angel did, b/c now my father is down in Waco, while my bro is in Belgium for the next 3 yrs & I am up in Euless. My dad is still in the nursing home too & my bro wont be home for friends/family for another year to visit. That's why I think it has happened that way. & so all our prayers did get answered.

So God is NOT bad & neither are the followers that believe. Currently my dad is in the nursing home still. My father wanted to die & if he had waited 2 more days in his apt, he would of been dead. He had the spuer germ aka the staph infection that ate at his muscles & cartiledge & has never ate right. Only junk food. & now he has no cartiledge, he can't walk, neither can he raise his right arm up high enough. But now he has a new take on life, whether he wants to walk again & make ammends w/God is his decision.

& to answer your question of whose religion is correct........I think that depends on the person answering that. For me it would be the religions that do good & believe in God & Jesus.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I addressed this in a post further down, check there.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

While not ALL religious PEOPLE are what Nightwing described, the INSTITUTION is, and the LEADERS of those who follow are.

An organization is only as good as those who lead it. When the prominent religious officials, especially those of the Catholic church, show intolerance and teach hatred to those who follow them, it shows.

Just because the little old blue-haired lady is sweet as sugar doesn't mean that the religion she follows encourages discrimination and hatred.

When I bash religion, I bash the INSTITUTION and it's LEADERS, not those who follow, unless they show the same hatred thier leaders do.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Okay, I'll agree that some of the leaders are definitely bad, but you have to remember that Christianity is very fragmented. The views of the Vatican or the more wacky Evangelical leaders probably don't even accurately represent the views of many of the members of their churches, much less the entirety of Christianity.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I don't like other religions that change the bible around. There are sooooo many loop holes in the Catholic religion that it's not funny. & comign to confess the sins of the flesh in a booth w/the Father is absurd. I can confess my sins to my Father (God) in my prayers during the day or at night!

But b/c of other religions that branch off from Christianity & start preaching differently from the original Christian religion, then that's when things get complicated.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

tl;dr.

 

Nah. I'm just kidding. I read the whole thing, and you are 100% right.

Of course, that doesn't matter to the religious folks, here. A history of abuse, both phsyical and mental, as well as an atrocious human rights record for folks who don't believe in the same thing the church does, is not enough to make these people question thier faith.

Like I've been saying, they lack the basic desire to find out why they are the way they are. They just are perfectly fine accepting an utterly fantastical story as the truth and yelling at anyone who questions why they think some magical guy in the sky runs the show here on Earth. It's a sickening level of idiocy. This is made even more sickening by the fact that if these people were to actually QUESTION what they are told, the Church wouldn't have the stranglehold on American Society that it has, and, I think, the country would be MUCH better off than it currently is.

 

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I'm sorry, but your entire post stems from the erroneous premise that religious people don't question their beliefs. Plenty of very intelligent people are firm Christians who have considered their beliefs and stuck with them. If you want an example, check out Dr. Francis S Collins. He's a Christian who formerly led the Human Genome project and is currently the director of the National Institute of Health, and he was a staunch atheist well into his adult life. You can't simply assume that religious people don't question their beliefs. I'm sure that some people--maybe the annoying ones that you're talking about--have followed blindly and never really thought about what they believe, but plenty of others do.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Then why can't any of them provide a logical explanation as to why they believe? You can't say they truly have questioned thier faith unless they can explain why they believe.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I see what you're saying & what the other guy is saying too. I grew up in the church of christ church. Aka Christianity. About last year I did question my Christianity b/c I thought bad thoughts of guys in a naughty way or bad thoughts about people & why I was judging them in my head when I'm not supposed to judge others, or otherwise I will be judged the same in front of God. But I cussed & still do & talked to this woman that used to work w/me & told her what was going on. She was from a non-denominational church.....but she asked me if I believe that Jesus is my savior? I said yes. Do I believe in the Holy Spirit & God & faith & have it too? I said yes. She said then you shouldn't think of yourself as not a Christian b/c you are a Christian. I mean from when I was born I grew up in the church, yes meaning going to sunday school & listening to my preacher preach which he is pretty funny too. Anyways, I got baptisized when I was 13 yro. It my choice, my decision. To answer your Q, it every person's choice & decision if they want to believe or not. I can't make them. But now I work in the DFW Airport (Tx). & some man watched the demo I was selling then said that I had a beautiful smile. I thanked him & he said you know Jesus loves you? I said yes I know. Then he asked me if I believe? I said yes. He asked me when I was baptized? I said 13. & his mouth went agape. He was shocked. I said what's wrong? He said you got baptized at an early age. He asked me why? I said b/c from an early age my parents took me to church, I studied my bible. Read through my "child" bible at the time & went to church a lot. & I told my mom I wanted to be baptized. She asked me if I knew what I was doing? I said yes. She said ok & I was baptized in front of a small audience. My mom cried of course. B/c that's when all the sins are washed from the flesh. & all the Angels watch & cheer & hooray. Call me crazy I don't care. But I told the guy that it was my decision & I loved God & Jesus. It's a part of me & it's b/c of my parents that took me church at an early age. Now it's a part of me. I told him a lot of people have told me they don't believe & I want to cry for them. B/c I do pity them. I really do. He was awestruck & he said he didn't believe until he turned 36 yro then he started believing. So he was an aethiest. He asked me what compelled me to do it? I said I read in my bible & my parents have told me that if I don't believe my soul will go to hell & God can do whatever he wants w/it. & I want good in my life not bad. Plus I was also born on Christmas day same as Jesus. So I have always been happy & I love it.

So to answer your Q, it is people's personal beliefs. No one doesn't have to prove a point to anyone. It is no one's business to know why or how they are choosing what religion they are or want to be. But I'll tell you one thing, I do NOT like & hate the child molesters who are the preachers. They are nasty dirty men that need their penis's cut off.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.businessinsider.com/xbox-one-virtual-reality-headset-will-compete-with-oculus-rift-2014-12 can a xbo even handle doing vr?12/21/2014 - 10:48pm
PHX Corp@Adam802 We'll break out the popcorn in June12/19/2014 - 9:23pm
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante: I'm itching to start it too but I will wait till the patch goes live. >>12/19/2014 - 7:52pm
Adam802Leland Yee and Jackson get trial date: http://sfbay.ca/2014/12/18/leland-yee-keith-jackson-get-trial-date/12/19/2014 - 5:24pm
MaskedPixelanteNevermind. Turns out when they said "the patch is now live", they meant "it's still in beta".12/19/2014 - 5:07pm
MaskedPixelanteSo I bought Dark Souls PC, and it's forcing me to log into GFWL. Did I miss something?12/19/2014 - 5:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/republicans-may-have-plan-to-save-internet-providers-from-utility-rules/ this is intreasting. congress may put net nutrality in to law to avoid title 2 classification12/19/2014 - 2:45pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/19/7421953/bullshit-cards-against-humanity-donated-250k-sunlight-foundation I have to admit I like the choice o organization. congrats to CAH.12/19/2014 - 1:51pm
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician