By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why did you quit Christianity?

FaRmLaNd on 11 August 2010
Coca-Cola said:
FaRmLaNd said:

The question of whether gay marriage should or shouldn't be allowed cannot be a religiously decided decision in a secular democracy. For the very reason that a secular democracy is not a theocracy.

Lets put it this way, religions should be happy they exists in a secular democracy and not a theocracy. Why? Because most religious can exist within a secular society but only one can really exist in a theocracy. Take a look at Saudi Arabia and tell me how many churches exist in the country?

Secularism is the only way to go if you want to be able to have multiple religions or none all in the same country.

U.S.A. is a secular democracy

Gay marriage is not just about religion vs. secular, it's deeper than that.  I don't have problems with gay marriage, but marriage has to be defined!  It's going to be a long fight but I do believe in u.s.a., gay marriage will be legal - someday.

Did I ever say that the US wasn't? Its just hypocritical to discriminate against a large percentage of the populace in a country that is secular. Some reports suggest that up to 13% (though I think its less) of the populace are gay. That is not a small minority, its outright hypocrisy in a country that separates church and state. Its as simple as that.

The US and other western countries that don't allow gay marriage are secular (Australia, my own country doesn't allow gay marriage either), but they're clearly not secular enough.

Marriage should either be defined as a legal connection between two people (no mention of sex at all) or only have civil unions with marriage being simply a label one gives to it. To not allow massive portions of the country to marry just doesn't make any sense.



Around the Network
Coca-Cola on 11 August 2010
FaRmLaNd said:
Coca-Cola said:
FaRmLaNd said:

The question of whether gay marriage should or shouldn't be allowed cannot be a religiously decided decision in a secular democracy. For the very reason that a secular democracy is not a theocracy.

Lets put it this way, religions should be happy they exists in a secular democracy and not a theocracy. Why? Because most religious can exist within a secular society but only one can really exist in a theocracy. Take a look at Saudi Arabia and tell me how many churches exist in the country?

Secularism is the only way to go if you want to be able to have multiple religions or none all in the same country.

U.S.A. is a secular democracy

Gay marriage is not just about religion vs. secular, it's deeper than that.  I don't have problems with gay marriage, but marriage has to be defined!  It's going to be a long fight but I do believe in u.s.a., gay marriage will be legal - someday.

Did I ever say that the US wasn't? Its just hypocritical to discriminate against a large percentage of the populace in a country that is secular. Some reports suggest that up to 13% (though I think its less) of the populace are gay. That is not a small minority, its outright hypocrisy in a country that separates church and state. Its as simple as that.

The US and other western countries that don't allow gay marriage are secular (Australia, my own country doesn't allow gay marriage either), but they're clearly not secular enough.

Marriage should either be defined as a legal connection between two people (no mention of sex at all) or only have civil unions with marriage being simply a label one gives to it. To not allow massive portions of the country to marry just doesn't make any sense.

13% seem very high.  About 10 years ago newsweek had the survey and found to be about 2%. 

I don't care about the percentage, I think what we need to do and I believe are doing is to find the right definition for marriage.  Legal connection between two people is not good enough cause then cousins will be included as well.  So, it's a problem when we try to come up with a new definition for marriage.  So, I don't think it's just about religion vs secular question.



FaRmLaNd on 11 August 2010
Coca-Cola said:
FaRmLaNd said:
Coca-Cola said:
FaRmLaNd said:

The question of whether gay marriage should or shouldn't be allowed cannot be a religiously decided decision in a secular democracy. For the very reason that a secular democracy is not a theocracy.

Lets put it this way, religions should be happy they exists in a secular democracy and not a theocracy. Why? Because most religious can exist within a secular society but only one can really exist in a theocracy. Take a look at Saudi Arabia and tell me how many churches exist in the country?

Secularism is the only way to go if you want to be able to have multiple religions or none all in the same country.

U.S.A. is a secular democracy

Gay marriage is not just about religion vs. secular, it's deeper than that.  I don't have problems with gay marriage, but marriage has to be defined!  It's going to be a long fight but I do believe in u.s.a., gay marriage will be legal - someday.

Did I ever say that the US wasn't? Its just hypocritical to discriminate against a large percentage of the populace in a country that is secular. Some reports suggest that up to 13% (though I think its less) of the populace are gay. That is not a small minority, its outright hypocrisy in a country that separates church and state. Its as simple as that.

The US and other western countries that don't allow gay marriage are secular (Australia, my own country doesn't allow gay marriage either), but they're clearly not secular enough.

Marriage should either be defined as a legal connection between two people (no mention of sex at all) or only have civil unions with marriage being simply a label one gives to it. To not allow massive portions of the country to marry just doesn't make any sense.

13% seem very high.  About 10 years ago newsweek had the survey and found to be about 2%. 

I don't care about the percentage, I think what we need to do and I believe are doing is to find the right definition for marriage.  Legal connection between two people is not good enough cause then cousins will be included as well.  So, it's a problem when we try to come up with a new definition for marriage.  So, I don't think it's just about religion vs secular question.

Between 2 and 13 percent seems the range. If other countries can do it, then it shouldn't be an issue.



sapphi_snake on 11 August 2010

The sole purpose of sex is reproductions? I'm sure it means more than that for humans. Your view of sex is very primitive and animalistic.

Also don't tell me you're one of those people that things used to be better during the god 'ol days. Love had nothing to do with marriage up until the 19th century, and people back then were in no way better at relationships as they are now. If anything they were worse.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Coca-Cola on 11 August 2010
sapphi_snake said:

The sole purpose of sex is reproductions? I'm sure it means more than that for humans. Your view of sex is very primitive and animalistic.

Also don't tell me you're one of those people that things used to be better during the god 'ol days. Love had nothing to do with marriage up until the 19th century, and people back then were in no way better at relationships as they are now. If anything they were worse.

What post are you responding to?



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 11 August 2010
Coca-Cola said:
sapphi_snake said:

The sole purpose of sex is reproductions? I'm sure it means more than that for humans. Your view of sex is very primitive and animalistic.

Also don't tell me you're one of those people that things used to be better during the god 'ol days. Love had nothing to do with marriage up until the 19th century, and people back then were in no way better at relationships as they are now. If anything they were worse.

What post are you responding to?

Can't remember... LOL... think it was richardhutnik.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

FaRmLaNd on 11 August 2010

I can't stand people who say it was better back then. Yeah, enjoy living in a world where if you got an infection you'd die LOL



Badassbab on 11 August 2010
Coca-Cola said:
Badassbab said:
sapphi_snake said:
Badassbab said:

I know this is a bit irrelavent but I'm from a Muslim upbringing, I even attended a madrassa (in the UK) and renouncing Islam was one of the best decisions I've ever made. I basically quit it because it was in conflict with my true beliefs of human rights for all and justice. Islam was totally incompatible with it on so many levels. Of course once I had quit, I felt so liberated and then I saw religion through a totally different prism as an agnostic. I now saw it as just a collection of ancient traditions and stories from the primitive ancient world. I will never ever go back to religion ever again and in fact I hate Islam (and all religions but in particular Islam) quite a lot now.

Question: Did your family try to kill you

My siblings know but I haven't really properly told my parents as I know it will hurt them a lot. I don't really care what my dad thinks but my mum is a bit religious and she would be upset if I was blatent about it though it's kinda obvious. It's frustrating though as I really want to tell her I'm not going to fast during Ramadan nor ever set foot inside a mosque again (to pray anyway). Even if I did tell they would never try and kill me lol. I'm from the UK not Saudi Arabia.

Hasn't there been honor-killings in the UK?

I believe there were some even here in the U.S.

That's more a cultural thing. I'm from a Bengali background it's not really practised in that part of the world, honour killing is a more middle eastern kind of thing. Furthermore it's usually carried out against women for 'shaming' the family.






pizzahut451 on 11 August 2010
highwaystar101 said:

Because even as a young impressionable child I found a lot of the stories that were being told to me as though they were fact unbelievable. Such as...

 

  • All snakes being eternally punished because the devil inhabited the body of one once (talk about injustice).
  • A man who survived being eaten by a whale and survive. Not to mention the subsequent destruction the digestive system would cause and the sheer lack of oxygen.
  • A flood which covered the entire Earth, killing everything except for two/seven of every animal species, which all lived within walking distance of an old man who wanted to save them.

And some things like the entire book of Leviticus are just absurd. I think I realised quite early on that I wasn't a Christian.


so you quit because you took those stories too litterally?? And book of Leviticus is irrelevant to christians...



richardhutnik on 11 August 2010
Coca-Cola said:
FaRmLaNd said:

The question of whether gay marriage should or shouldn't be allowed cannot be a religiously decided decision in a secular democracy. For the very reason that a secular democracy is not a theocracy.

Lets put it this way, religions should be happy they exists in a secular democracy and not a theocracy. Why? Because most religious can exist within a secular society but only one can really exist in a theocracy. Take a look at Saudi Arabia and tell me how many churches exist in the country?

Secularism is the only way to go if you want to be able to have multiple religions or none all in the same country.

U.S.A. is a secular democracy

Gay marriage is not just about religion vs. secular, it's deeper than that.  I don't have problems with gay marriage, but marriage has to be defined!  It's going to be a long fight but I do believe in u.s.a., gay marriage will be legal - someday.

The problem you run into here is that the meaning, purpose and demands of what make a marriage a marriage takes shape in a religious context.  By trying to have the same thing in a purely secular context is going to have people arguing for what they feel are their "rights", and that can lead to all sorts of things that undermine the nature of marriage.  Because people argued they had a right to a divorce, then the concept of "til death due you part" got thrown out the window.  Marriage isn't going to work as a concept so long as people keep trying to ground it in rights.  Marriage is the idea of mutual sacrifice for one another, in love.  The belief that the concept of marriage comes from a transcendent being, whose ways are to be followed, elevates marriage to be more, and drives people to be better.

I would say to stop fighting to get society to redefine what marriage is and find something else that would be more viable elsewhere.  I would say to redefine everything as civil unions, for SECULAR purposes and be done with it.