Not exact matches
So how do you go from that reasoning to «Since it wasn't accidental then it must have been this ancient male diety
named (fill in blank depending on
religion) who loves me and knows me and cares for me and wants me to perform rituals that have nothing to do with morality like prayer, not eating
certain things, sabaath and many more just because he said so, even though we have no record
of him saying anything, just records
of humans who wrote things down that they claim he said, but I want to believe it all so badly I will base my beliefs on no other evidence than «it just can't be accident».
Name calling and denial
of civil rights, oppression, and manipulation
of people seems to be the hallmark
of a
certain strain
of religion.
Yes, a
certain section
of extremists, are violent in the
name of «Islam» but they aren't truly part
of the
religion.
Although Lincoln is often praised for this remark by those who oppose the mixing
of religion and politics, it contains three
of the most controversial ideas in American politics: that it is legitimate to invoke the
name of God within the realm
of political discourse; that God's existence isn't merely symbolic, but that he is always right; and that since God takes sides on
certain issues, some people will be divinely justified while others will stand in opposition not only to their political opponents but to the very Creator and Sustainer
of the Universe.
The local Naxi and Lisu ethnic minorities»
religions even forbade cutting
certain trees and they took the
names of local animals — birds, bees and bears — in effect making them their ancestors.