In the first 2 pages there are 5 threads on religion. As far as I can tell, one of these is made by a religious person.
I don't see what that has to do with either coming across militant, not giving a fuck about what others believe or generalising people by their religious preferences. Nor do you seem to get the point I was making, which is that religious or not, there are people who are dicks about what others believe and those who aren't. As for me, I just find it a fascinating subject for discussion. That's just looking at the thread titles. I remember Stalin saying somewhere that GeneralofCarthage brought up religion in a large amount of threads.
You see, according to my conversations with sly on Steam, he's also the guy that believes all gay should be banished and also the bible was of course written by god and not Jesus followers and lots of other people. (because of course God is named Luke, Matthew, Peter etc.) This coming from a christian who knows his religion very well and knows what's not true.
He did at one point, but i'm not going to blame him, he's still young like us and has lots to learn!!!
Again, I don't see how that relates to how he turns many threads into religious debates, especially when he had already changed his beliefs somewhat when he started doing that a lot.
Or the internet. If all your life you're being told what's said in the Bible is true, and all your argument for that claim are being destroyed on the internet, you'd get doubts no matter what age you are.
True, I believe in the Bible, but not at the point to leave my beliefs because of what other people believe.
Believe? Certain parts of the Bible are plain wrong, no matter how you look at it. Of course, these claims are thousands of years old, so it's no surprise they've been disproven.
I believe in the Bible, I'm pretty sure it exists. I just don't believe in anyting what is written in it.
You saw, but did you believe? Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I believe in the historic parts of the New Testament. I believe the Old Testament isn't that accurate.
Both. As in, substantiated by other sources and consistent with our understanding of history. It describes events that actually happened and people that actually existed.
Being filled with inconsistencies and obvious fallacies, I'm highly doubting the correctness part. Not to mention some parts sound much alike parts of earlier mythological stories. While some of the events have happened, the ways in which they did don't sound very right. Which isn't a surprise, considering its age.
