Atheists say that any argument
backed by a religious person is flawed, because.they hate religion irrationally.
Not exact matches
Again, the Christian
religious practice of going
back to the Old Testament to relive the archaic events Yahweh performed on his
people, a practice which was commanded
by both Yahweh and Christ, is really a call for the
people of God to move forward and continue the march toward the Promised Land.
So, I sincerely and respectfully ask of individuals who
back anti-choice campaigns
by citing personal moral or
religious reasons this question, which I ask out honest curiosity: how can you recognize the consequences, historically, of legally banning a certain choice a
person makes, and maintain that your moral code has not been violated, or even argue that your moral or
religious code has been upheld, or elevated?
More pastors have more
people locked up
by feeding them a steady diet of do's and don'ts blended with just enough of the gospel and
religious speak, and willy - nilly bible passages that are turned into principles (laws), that the poison goes down smoothly and they keep comin»
back for more.
Science
by all means can comment and deny it because there's no proof but religion (and
by extension,
religious people) take this as an assault on them and their beliefs and so fight
back.
This conviction is grounded both in our
religious faith and in our understanding of the processes
by which
persons grow, become distorted, and find their way
back to wholeness.
The case,
backed by Humanists UK and its section Northern Ireland Humanists, seeks to change the current unjust situation where
religious people are able to have legally recognised marriage ceremonies in line with their beliefs, but humanists are not.