If, then yeah
2006-12-12 08:38:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by hot carl sagan: ninja for hire 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Wrong! If A leads to B and B Leads to C, then we need to eliminate the middle man. By this logic A would ultimately lead to C. So we should rid ourselves of the extra step. Get rid of B!
2006-12-12 16:40:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Presagio 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No you are wrong or maybe right in a way and wrong in another. Religion is sort of about groups of people more than about the One they worship. If people who were members of religions were truly seeking for wisdom and truth from God then we would not have these problems. It is people not God or spirituality that pervert religion into fanaticism and war. They say they believe but really they are out for their own interest and do not trust God to take care of things they don't have control over like the hearts of people of different cultures and religions. They are only causing problems for the One that they claim to stand for.
At least that is how I feel about my religion of Christianity. In my spiritual quest I have learned that people have and will continue to say they are for Christ and it is a lie. It is true that you will know them by their fruit. Godly fruits are things like love, patience, forgiveness, humility, kindness, generosity and faithfulness. They may not always agree with you but they will love you anyway and won't argue with you. The rest are fakes. That is what we need rid of. The fake ones.
2006-12-12 16:49:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by bess 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
In math, it also means that A leads to C. Yeppers, A is something we should get rid of, if B cannot be controlled. But all C does not come from A. Some of it comes from D (money and power).
2006-12-12 16:42:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by bloody_gothbob 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
A faulty premise can only lead to a faulty conclusion. There is such a thing as pure religion... which is mentioned in the bible. James 1:27 says: Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
2006-12-12 16:47:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by hisgloryisgreat 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I suppose you could put alot of effort and money onto destroying a time honored tradition. Smashing structure, burning books and killing the leaders/teachers of all faiths every where. But isn't that what war is? An aggressive action against a target?
I prefer to simply not fight.
2006-12-12 16:41:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Odindmar 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
If money leads to greed, and greed leads to war, then I'm guessing you're looking for a place to rid yourself of all your money?
Send me an e-mail, and I'll let you know where to mail it!
2006-12-12 16:38:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by jbtascam 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Religion is an attempt to explain reality and existence with beliefs or unsubstantiated "truths". Fanaticism is trying to protect these delicate "truths" sometimes by eliminating all contrary points of view. We need to eliminate ignorance and intolerance.
2006-12-12 16:44:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by POV 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The problem with that logic is that A doesn't always lead to B, and there are many more ways to C than just B.
2006-12-12 16:38:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Church Music Girl 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I say we get rid of B and cut out the middle man.
2006-12-12 16:38:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes
2006-12-12 16:38:48
·
answer #11
·
answered by Sliceathroat 3
·
0⤊
1⤋