Discussion on Christianity? - all backgrounds welcome -

[Masrur Fanalis]

We Are Organisms

Ate Your Fries

We Are Organisms

Ate Your Fries

Kashii_Ai

Ate Your Fries

Yeah...that's in the quran. Have you ever actually study the bible?(if I may ask) :l
You should before making those kind of claims....
How is the bible sexist? There are many great women of the Bible...
http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/5-strong-women-from-the-bible/
And there's way more than that.
Is it sexist because God is male? What if He was female? It would still be sexist, right?
Because Eve, a woman, ate the forbidden fruit? So did Adam. In fact, Adam was with her when it happened. Authority was given to man over woman was a punishment of what Eve did...

Gen3: 16-19 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” NIV

Because wives must be submissive to their husband? Let me answer this with our culture point of view of relationships:
The husband takes care of the wife.
The man wears the pants in the relationship.
The man is expected to lead the women on the right track and be a positive influence on her.

See where I'm going with this? I can see how girls would think its sexism, but its more simple to see it through our culture today.

I'm in agreement with you that there are many strong women in the Bible, I look up to them very much so. c:

God isn't male, the human aspect of God is male. God is an omniscient being beyond the limits of gender and more of a force--we just personify God as Christians to better understand Him within out human limits. And it makes it feel more personal. c:

That view of marriage is actually quite sexist--it assumes men are better than women when this isn't true. It also creates absolute dependency in a relationship which is unhealthy and can be abusive.

I've been in an emotionally abusive relationship before, and my ex did everything he could to make me emotionally, spiritually, and mentally dependent on him. When he and I began to grow apart and I began to develop my own independence, he didn't like it because he no longer had power over me, and ended our relationship. And then he said it was my fault.

So, sorry but I don't buy that bullshit, even as a Christian.

In short I was just saying that its a man's duty to take care of his woman.

sexist and traditional of u

Is it not a husband's duty take care and protect his wife?

what if the husband is a cripple, is he not allowed a woman?

you dodged the question. :l
Anywho, he is. Who says he isn't? My neighbor took care of his wife and she took care of him. (Until she died...)

[--Deviant Sequence--]

GunsmithKitten

As for the other

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12)

.

The underlined part is simply another way to say ''Pay all your attention'' or ''With the fullest attention''

The bolded part is speaking only of the Church, that a woman should not speak against a man or teach when there is a male teacher already present.

The Bible is about as equally sexist as evolution.

Also, to touch on something said a while ago, God is neither male or female. Indeed, he expresses traits of both. The word for the law, Torah, is a feminine-gendered word, so is the word for spirit. Likewise, the shekinah aspects of God (that is, the feminine or ''motherly'' side) has a lot of importance in the Bible. One of the definitions of faith is to run to the shelter of a motherbird's wing (the motherbird being God, naturally). A great deal of creative and parental aspects of God are expressed as feminine, some entirely exclusively.

There are roles between the genders, just as there are for servants, laborers, kings, and priests. They are all equal in nature, even if they are not always equal in rank. That's how everything in our world operates. Being composed for something different than that of another creation does not mean one is of lesser nature. Guitars don't cry because they have none of the abilities a percussive instrument does. Both (arguably, depending on how RAW you are with either instrument) are required to make an awesome Rock n' Roll song.

[GunsmithKitten]

--Deviant Sequence--

There are roles between the genders, just as there are for servants, laborers, kings, and priests. They are all equal in nature, even if they are not always equal in rank

Then they are not equal at all.

Also, one has more authority over the other. And is compensated far more than the others, unless laborers got to eat as lavishly and have as many bodyguards as Kings.

Quote:

Being composed for something different than that of another creation does not mean one is of lesser nature.

Then why is one rewarded and compensated more than the othe?

Quote:

Guitars don't cry because they have none of the abilities a percussive instrument does.

Which is why drummers in rock bands are equally lauded and revered as lead guitarists, right?

Quote:

Both (arguably, depending on how RAW you are with either instrument) are required to make an awesome Rock n' Roll song.

I'll bet 50k gold right here and now that you can't name as many famous rock and roll drummers as you can lead guitarists. No wiki'ing either.

Seperate but Equal didn't fool black people in the 20th century. It sure as hell shouldn't be fooling women in the 21st.

[Masrur Fanalis]

GunsmithKitten

--Deviant Sequence--

There are roles between the genders, just as there are for servants, laborers, kings, and priests. They are all equal in nature, even if they are not always equal in rank

Then they are not equal at all.

Also, one has more authority over the other. And is compensated far more than the others, unless laborers got to eat as lavishly and have as many bodyguards as Kings.

Quote:

Being composed for something different than that of another creation does not mean one is of lesser nature.

Then why is one rewarded and compensated more than the othe?

Quote:

Guitars don't cry because they have none of the abilities a percussive instrument does.

Which is why drummers in rock bands are equally lauded and revered as lead guitarists, right?

Quote:

Both (arguably, depending on how RAW you are with either instrument) are required to make an awesome Rock n' Roll song.

I'll bet 50k gold right here and now that you can't name as many famous rock and roll drummers as you can lead guitarists. No wiki'ing either.

Seperate but Equal didn't fool black people in the 20th century. It sure as hell shouldn't be fooling women in the 21st.

Lol i keep forgetting to tell you this, but i love your sig xP its funny

[GunsmithKitten]

Ate Your Fries

GunsmithKitten

--Deviant Sequence--

There are roles between the genders, just as there are for servants, laborers, kings, and priests. They are all equal in nature, even if they are not always equal in rank

Then they are not equal at all.

Also, one has more authority over the other. And is compensated far more than the others, unless laborers got to eat as lavishly and have as many bodyguards as Kings.

Quote:

Being composed for something different than that of another creation does not mean one is of lesser nature.

Then why is one rewarded and compensated more than the othe?

Quote:

Guitars don't cry because they have none of the abilities a percussive instrument does.

Which is why drummers in rock bands are equally lauded and revered as lead guitarists, right?

Quote:

Both (arguably, depending on how RAW you are with either instrument) are required to make an awesome Rock n' Roll song.

I'll bet 50k gold right here and now that you can't name as many famous rock and roll drummers as you can lead guitarists. No wiki'ing either.

Seperate but Equal didn't fool black people in the 20th century. It sure as hell shouldn't be fooling women in the 21st.

Lol i keep forgetting to tell you this, but i love your sig xP its funny

Well it IS my second favorite movie of all time, only proper it get some public affection from me, ya know....

[--Deviant Sequence--]

GunsmithKitten

Then they are not equal at all.

Then we should not be satisfied with our life and society unless everyone, everywhere, is exactly the same, right?

Quote:

Also, one has more authority over the other. And is compensated far more than the others, unless laborers got to eat as lavishly and have as many bodyguards as Kings.

Again, Nature versus Rank (or role). The laborer by nature is only different from the king by the differences in genetics and perhaps how he was raised. They are both frail mortal creatures that are whisked away as dust in the winds of time. The king is not a king without a kingdom. A slave is not a slave without a master. If two dogs suddenly became as intelligent as us, one bred for fighting and one for racing.. is one dog objectively better than the other? If the fighting dog forces the racing dog into servitude, does some essential part of the racing dog's nature change? No. It does not.

Quote:

Then why is one rewarded and compensated more than the othe?

Howso? If you have some examples, I'd like to see them. I apologize if you've brought them up before, I haven't read the entirety of the thread.

Quote:

Which is why drummers in rock bands are equally lauded and revered as lead guitarists, right?

Oooooh. So this is about perception and renown then is it? Nevermind the fact that the song would obviously lack something if either the drummer or guitarist were missing.. what matters is which one is ''revered''.

Quote:

I'll bet 50k gold right here and now that you can't name as many famous rock and roll drummers as you can lead guitarists. No wiki'ing either.

Nope. Off the top of my head I can only recall two famous guitarists and one drummer. Honestly it's not something I care about. Again though, this is about appearance and fame rather than nature and role.

But lets consider this for a moment. It is true that in most cases, the lead guitar and vocalist are the most ''popular'' positions in any given band of musicians. Their sound tends to be at the forefront, it is generally the easiest to recognize. The bass player and the drummer can be considered as the team members who lay down a beat and baseline for the guitarist to run off of. How does that make the lead guitarist superior to any other member of the band?

Consider this example from modern gaming:

In the game League of Legends, the common team set-up in the current metagame is one Physical Damage carry (the person who ''carries'' the team to victory by using high damage from attacks and skills to defeat enemies), one Support who's job is to (duh) support the physical carry, an AP (Most often ''magical'') damage carry, a jungler and a tank or tanky DPS

The carries and the tank are generally what win games in the most direct and obvious sense. The tank soaks up the damage, crowd control's the enemy, and keeps foes off the carries while the carries pick off opponents to win fights.

Just like our guitarist.. the Carry is the most sought after position in LoL. Everyone wants to be that person who just destroys the opposition and leads the team to victory. So then you jump into Solo Queue, playing with complete strangers randomly chosen for your team. All the sudden you have 4 people picking a Carry character while one dude is stuck with tank/support or what have you. 95% of the time that team fails miserably and loses what is usually a 45min to an hour game in about 20-25 minutes.

So obviously, the Carry isn't so much more important than the rest of the team that it just 'lolwinz' games on its own. Every other role is essential to optimize the roles of every one else.

So tell me where the Carry/Guitarist being perceived (or desired) as the best role/position, makes the other roles less important? How is the drummer or bassist not equally essential to the team as the guitarist? They're not, correct? They just have different roles.

Quote:

Seperate but Equal didn't fool black people in the 20th century. It sure as hell shouldn't be fooling women in the 21st.

I would hope it isn't.

[GunsmithKitten]

--Deviant Sequence--

Then we should not be satisfied with our life and society unless everyone, everywhere, is exactly the same, right?

That's up to the individual if he's satisfied with his current station in life. Many aren't. That's what leads to ambition, achievement, conquest, and advancement. That's what leads to greatness is o NOT be content with one's lot and "role".

Quote:

Again, Nature versus Rank (or role). The laborer by nature is only different from the king by the differences in genetics and perhaps how he was raised. They are both frail mortal creatures that are whisked away as dust in the winds of time. The king is not a king without a kingdom. A slave is not a slave without a master. If two dogs suddenly became as intelligent as us, one bred for fighting and one for racing.. is one dog objectively better than the other? If the fighting dog forces the racing dog into servitude, does some essential part of the racing dog's nature change? No. It does not.

The fighting dog is superior. he will have his way. If the racing dog has a problem with it, then he can try to take it from the fighting dog, but likely, he won't win as he is not bred for fighting.

No, the nature does not change, but one's nature is not as valuable or as prosperous as the other.

Quote:

Howso? If you have some examples, I'd like to see them. I apologize if you've brought them up before, I haven't read the entirety of the thread.

Hell, let's start with an obvious one; seamstress vs. CEO.

Quote:

Oooooh. So this is about perception and renown then is it? Nevermind the fact that the song would obviously lack something if either the drummer or guitarist were missing.. what matters is which one is ''revered''.

And why do you think that renown and perception exists in the first place?

Quote:

Nope. Off the top of my head I can only recall two famous guitarists and one drummer. Honestly it's not something I care about. Again though, this is about appearance and fame rather than nature and role.

You're still missing the point; mankind values one more than the other, and always will. No amount of prattle about "equal in nature" will change that.

Quote:

But lets consider this for a moment. It is true that in most cases, the lead guitar and vocalist are the most ''popular'' positions in any given band of musicians. Their sound tends to be at the forefront, it is generally the easiest to recognize. The bass player and the drummer can be considered as the team members who lay down a beat and baseline for the guitarist to run off of. How does that make the lead guitarist superior to any other member of the band?

Doesn't matter. Which one is getting the fame and the fatter contract? If they truly were equal, they'd be paid and lauded equally, now wouldn't they?

Quote:

In the game League of Legends, the common team set-up in the current metagame is one Physical Damage carry (the person who ''carries'' the team to victory by using high damage from attacks and skills to defeat enemies), one Support who's job is to (duh) support the physical carry, an AP (Most often ''magical'') damage carry, a jungler and a tank or tanky DPS

Not played LoL but it sounds close enough to WoW, and yes, it applies in WoW too.

DPS are far easier to play, and don't have near as many responsibilities, thus, they are less valued to the team than the Tank and the Healer, who are not nearly as easily replaced. You can win a fight without a DPS. You cannot without a Healer or Tank.

Quote:

I would hope it isn't.

it's fooled you, however. If it truly were equal, the compensation and perks would be equal and they aren't.

[--Deviant Sequence--]

GunsmithKitten

That's up to the individual if he's satisfied with his current station in life. Many aren't. That's what leads to ambition, achievement, conquest, and advancement. That's what leads to greatness is o NOT be content with one's lot and "role".

Allow me to rephrase then.
No one is equal, on any given level, unless everyone is the same. No diversity. No different skin, eye, or hair colors or styles, no different ways of thinking. No difference in position, job, capability, muscle mass, bone structure, neurological make-up, etc.

Quote:

The fighting dog is superior. he will have his way. If the racing dog has a problem with it, then he can try to take it from the fighting dog, but likely, he won't win as he is not bred for fighting.

No, the nature does not change, but one's nature is not as valuable or as prosperous as the other.

Superior according to whom or what criteria? What makes the fighting dog superior? The fact that he is bred to fight? So fighting is superior to running? And if the running dog simply just takes off? Is the fighting dog still superior? He's not bred for running, so what is he going to do about it?

Quote:

Hell, let's start with an obvious one; seamstress vs. CEO.

Okay. Let's see. For starters, the CEO more than likely has the more difficult and stressful job, generally speaking as it is all naturally dependent on the situation. The CEO more than likely has to deal with a company from the top level. The CEO makes decisions that affect the lives of everyone underneath him, even if its unintentional. The CEO runs a company, almost an organism (I use that word loosely) in it's own right. It probably requires fine micromanaging, and if he makes a mistake then not only does he have to deal with the consequences, but likely most of his employees, if not all of them.

On the other hand, the Seamstress weaves. When she makes a mistake, there aren't dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of people who may be out of work because of it. Her decisions don't affect the lives of... well, really anyone (as far as decisions on her job go), except maybe a consumer if she's malicious or made a mistake or something.

I never intended, nor will I ever, to justify why a higher ranking person is more compensated than a lower ranking one. But as you can see, there do exist reasons. Honestly I see no problem with it.

Quote:

And why do you think that renown and perception exists in the first place?

I could get into that. It would be a fairly long speech. However, it's simply not relevant. Fame and perception have nothing to do with the actual facts about one's nature. The fact that the guitarist is more famous than the drummer does not diminish the drummer's value in the group, as the percussionist in a musical band. His value is fixed regardless, he is still required and without him there is no song. And this is obviously all assuming the guitarist and drummer are ''equal in skill''.. if it is even possible to compare the two skillsets.

Quote:

You're still missing the point; mankind values one more than the other, and always will. No amount of prattle about "equal in nature" will change that.

Who's trying to change it? So what if humanity, in its own eyes, considers one thing more valuable than the other? It does not change the nature of the objects. They still have a defined role and are still a necessary part of the system. A man's (or men's/women's/mankind's) subjective definition of value has no effect on the intrinsic value and properties of anything. Ever. Quite simply, it does not change the facts.

Quote:

Doesn't matter. Which one is getting the fame and the fatter contract? If they truly were equal, they'd be paid and lauded equally, now wouldn't they?

You said it yourself: Mankind values one more than the other. So then should I take from all this that you believe opinions determine superiority?

Quote:

it's fooled you, however. If it truly were equal, the compensation and perks would be equal and they aren't.

''Fooled'' me? That's amusing.

[GunsmithKitten]

--Deviant Sequence--

Superior according to whom or what criteria? What makes the fighting dog superior? The fact that he is bred to fight? So fighting is superior to running? And if the running dog simply just takes off? Is the fighting dog still superior? He's not bred for running, so what is he going to do about it?

He wouldn't be much of a fighter if he couldn't compensate for speed anyway.

Quote:

Okay. Let's see. For starters, the CEO more than likely has the more difficult and stressful job, generally speaking as it is all naturally dependent on the situation. The CEO more than likely has to deal with a company from the top level. The CEO makes decisions that affect the lives of everyone underneath him, even if its unintentional. The CEO runs a company, almost an organism (I use that word loosely) in it's own right. It probably requires fine micromanaging, and if he makes a mistake then not only does he have to deal with the consequences, but likely most of his employees, if not all of them.[

On the other hand, the Seamstress weaves. When she makes a mistake, there aren't dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of people who may be out of work because of it. Her decisions don't affect the lives of... well, really anyone (as far as decisions on her job go), except maybe a consumer if she's malicious or made a mistake or something.

You just proved my point for me. CEO's are more valuable as the job is more demanding. Seamstresses are not equal to them.

Likewise, male and female roles are not equal in Christianity, as one is given authority over the other. If things were equal, there would be no authority required.

[--Deviant Sequence--]

GunsmithKitten

He wouldn't be much of a fighter if he couldn't compensate for speed anyway.

Before we get too distracted on this topic, Its safe to say that the dog bred for running is going to outrun the one who isn't.

Quote:

You just proved my point for me. CEO's are more valuable as the job is more demanding. Seamstresses are not equal to them.

Likewise, male and female roles are not equal in Christianity, as one is given authority over the other. If things were equal, there would be no authority required.

Not quite madam. I repeat my affirmation that being of lesser or greater rank does not entail lesser or greater nature. The difference between CEOs and Seamstresses is rank and role. Also, I think there's a very slight conflict between what you just said and in your previous post. Perhaps it's implied, or I'm over-analyzing it. It seemed to me that, previously, your point was about the perception and opinion of roles and how it affects those roles and ''equality''. Now, we're discussing the intrinsic value of the role itself. A small distinction perhaps.


Of course the roles are not equal, and thankfully so. That would make for an awfully boring world in my opinion.

[GunsmithKitten]

--Deviant Sequence--

Of course the roles are not equal, and thankfully so. That would make for an awfully boring world in my opinion.

Fair enough, but don't pretend that things are equal yet unequal.

People are not equal to each other, and Christianity doesn't believe it either. Course, I got a real problem with Christianity in that it's determination of who has authority and who doesn't is based purely on gender. That's what get my blood boiling mad.

[Kashii_Ai]

--Deviant Sequence--

Of course the roles are not equal, and thankfully so. That would make for an awfully boring world in my opinion.

You're making good points here, and I'm in agreement with you that everything has intrinsic value, regardless of rank, but that's not the point of the discussion here. It's about how Christianity considers women unequal to or having different roles from men, which is indeed sexist.

I think one thing you haven't factored in is something called 'privilege.' Privilege refers to how social institutions treat you based on things like race, gender, sexuality, income, belief system, etc etc. Some people have more privilege than others because of how most social institutions are--for a very obvious example, a woman may be paid less then a man, even though she performs the exact same job, because she's female.

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being more privileged than someone else--God made you the way He did for a reason, and you should be thankful for the things you have. c: However, if you do have more privilege, it's also your responsibility to understand what it's like to be less privileged--put yourself in someone else's shoes, if you will, as well as make efforts to make society more equal, ESPECIALLY because society will treat you better, thus you likely have more influence.

It all just boils down to asking someone what problems they face because they're female/gay/transgender/black/etc and then striving to correct those problems.

So, even if something still has intrinsic value, what truly matters is how they're treated in social institutions, such as religion, because it has very real consequences in that person's life.

If I'm fully dependent on my boyfriend for spiritual guidance, then he has the freedom to manipulate or abuse me or use it to his own benefit, because I've been denied the chance to discover spirituality for myself just cause 'that's what the Bible says.'

It's also important to note that absolute dependence (makes all decisions in relationship, controls finances, denies you from having your own opinions, does not want you to work) in a relationship can be considered a warning sign of abuse by the National Domestic Abuse hotline.

[JediDillon]

Kashii_Ai

Hello!

As you likely saw from the title, this thread is a place where you can open discussions on Christianity and religion. I want this thread to be a safe place for everyone who is curious, confused, or lost, whether they may be Christian or not, and whether they may believe things most Christians dislike or not.

ALL backgrounds are welcome regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, or belief system—I don’t care if you’re a motherflubbing fairy that rides unicorns and poops butterflies with sparkly kawaii desu nii magical powers, you are more than welcome to start a debate here or participate in the current ones. biggrin

I also have a Q&A thread if you'd like to check that out.

RULES:

o1. Be nice to all the kiddies! Please respect all people on this thread regardless of sexual orientation, religion, belief system, gender identity, personal choice, and race. Prosecution for any of that stuff ain’t gonna fly here, either.

o2. Don’t shove your beliefs in their face! Please refrain from using your belief system as a weapon, a means of conversion, or as a means to discredit the opinions and beliefs of others.

o3. No one is going to agree 100%! It’s fine if you don’t like what someone says or if you’re dissatisfied with it. We all have different beliefs for many different, very valid reasons. If you can't come to a conclusion or agreement in your debate, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.

o4. Don't feed the trolls! Any attempt at or effort to encourage trolling will result in an immediate report.

o5. Listen to our great Internet Mother Gaia! Failure to follow the ToS will result in an immediate report.

Please follow the above rules anytime you’re in this thread. Failure to do so will result in an Ignore and the inability to be seen or heard on this thread. I hate Ignoring people and I’d rather not have to do it.

________________________________________________________

FAQ:

What if I don’t like someone's belief system or what they have to say?

Well, hun. That’s your problem, not mine or the other party's.

If you were running a thread like this one, would you like it if I came on and I was like YOU’RE WRONG!!!11 and started giving you a hard time because of what you believe? I’m sure you wouldn’t like it very much. I ask that you extend the same courtesy to everyone within this thread, and allow me to run it as I see fit.

If you don’t like it, you can start your own thread! No one’s stopping you.

So if you don’t agree with everything the Catholic Church says, why’d you stick with it? Why don’t you just leave?

Because I believe I saw something wrong with my religion, and I feel that God asked me to fix it. If I abandoned Catholicism, I don’t think I would be a very good Catholic anymore.

I have been tempted by the idea of becoming Episcopalian, but something stops me every time. :’)

I don't get your beliefs . . . how'd you come up with them? How do they make sense with what the Catholic Church says?

I'm working on my own article for that, but in the meantime these should help:

Moral Conscience - From the Catechism, an often overlooked piece.

The Great Debate: Justin's View - A really long but awesome article examining Scripture in support of marriage equality.

Believe Out Loud - This wonderful website has all sorts of different articles and resources to look at.

So if you support gay people . . . are you gay too?

Nope! I like men. biggrin Though if people think I’m a lesbian for whatever reason I don’t bother correcting them. XD

I could technically be included in the group of not-heteronormative because I’m also polyamorous, though my current relationship is closed and I’ve never been in a poly relationship before.

Basically it means I prefer or sometimes need to have a loving, committed relationship with more than one person at once to which all parties consent. Polyamoury exists on a spectrum much like gayness and gender identity—some people are on either end of the extreme, and some people are somewhere in the middle.

So I can really start ANY discussion I want? You won’t judge me?

Yes, you can start ANY discussion you want. It’s not my place to judge you or prosecute you—that’s God’s job, not mine, and chances are you’re probably okay anyway.

Others aren't allowed to prosecute you in here either, in accordance with the rules.

So who are you, anyway?

You can read more about that at my Q&A thread, or you can always look at my profile!

________________________________________________________

DISCUSSION TOPICS:

Here's some questions and ideas to get us started:

Who or what is God? What does God want?

How do atheists/non-Christians factor into everything?

Why do you think Christians are against X? Is that right? Is it wrong?

What are some of your favorite things about Christianity? Why don't you like Christianity?

1. God is the creator and sustainer of the Universe andeverything that dwells in it. There are so many things that make up God he is incomprehensible to men. God wants all of his creation to enjoy themselves and live a good life. He also never stops creating in the eternal existence of creation.

2. Athesits and non-Christians are God's people just like us only they are misguided in their beliefs.

3. I think that Christians are against LGBT which I assume is what you mean by X based on what you described above is becasuse intimacy is between men and women not any other way.

4. Some of my favorite things about Christianity are the people who are very knowledgable about life in all aspects not just in religion but life itself. Some things I don't like about certain churches that claim to be Christian are churches that are full of themselves like the Catholic church.

[Lychee Bae]

Who or what is God? What does God want?
I don't know, and I don't know.
How do atheists/non-Christians factor into everything?
Humans interact with each other.
What are some of your favorite things about Christianity? Why don't you like Christianity?
I feel that Christianity gives hope to some people. You have to have a open mind. I don't like it because of the names that go with it. Also I am fine with the religion, but I am not to fond of all the followers.

[Kashii_Ai]

PSA:

I'm gonna be gone for most of this week, as well as this weekend, because I'm going to Ohayocon! Whooooo~!

So, yes. Be good in my absence. Follow the rules. If you have any questions or anything, don't hesitate to PM me! c:

Also, sentiments and prayers for safe travel would be much appreciated. ^^

Stay fabulous, my dears~ heart