WTF I am talking about is your erroneously extrapolating from Christian to hypocrite, just like you erroneosly extrapolated from "his post could be true" to gullible. You do this a lot and you should stop it.
-
How do you masterbate??
-
No, I'm extrapolating from "fundamentalist" to hypocrite. If I criticize your beliefs (and everyone's religious beliefs), and you criticize the beliefs of some other religion, then who is a hypocrite?If you're a fundamentalist, you have to disagree with other religions. In fact, is that arrogance?
-
Well, then you extrapolated from Christian to fundamental. Not cool.And it's neither hypocritical nor arrogant.
-
Okay boys.....Keep it cool here... We always get all revved up when we chat about religion. Lets, change the topic or end the thread..Okay?This is way off topic.
-
damien> Honestly, I have no idea what your talking about. I don't think the flavor matters. Now you're obviously just trying to annoy me.Roc> Keep it cool here...This is way off topic.OK, I won't say anything about The Exorcist.
-
Science doesn't prove or disprove anything (something the "intelligent design folks can't seem to grasp). Seems you argued before that facts are proven items. So given your statement. Nothing can be a fact.>But it does cast some fanciful biblical ideas into grave doubt. The idea that the Earth was created 5000 years ago is irrational.Irrational by whose standards. Created 5000 years ago, maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on which biblical definition of day that you use.>That's silly fundamentalist propaganda. Now are you going to tell me that science has proven the Noah myth?Give me one instance where science has proved the Bible incorrect. To my knowledge science has not proven or disproven that Noah existed or not. However, there is pretty good evidence that at least most of the plant was covered by water at pretty much the same point in time.>That's fine. Keep your non-"facts" out of the science classroom.I will if you will. Since evolution is a theory, it is not a fact either. Presenting it as a fact is not being very truthful or for that matter very scientific. Refusal to acknowledge that there are other theories on how the world came about, just because you disagree with them is pretty un-scientific as well.>Religion has contributed absolutely nothing to the understanding of the natural world. There is nothing in the scriptures of any religion atoms, molecules, molecular biology, genes, planets, stars, pulsars, and on and on, ad nauseum. If you're searching for meaning and ethics, religion and philosophy are fine, but they are utter dead ends if you want to understand how the universe functions. It has no mechanism to explore ideas in that domain.Here we definitly disagree. I find the scriptures to be very informative regarding how I should go about studying the natural world. Explaining how I should look at it, how I should study it, that it is worth the investigation, and basically telling me that I am responsible for it and keeping it.>What happens when strong scientific evidence contradicts the bible in a way that even you can't discount? Will you have a major crisis of some sort?Since this has never occurred, do not think so. Do I think I know everything? No. Do I think that what I believe is 100% correct all the time. No. That's why I have faith and why I have to continue to study and understand.>So if I forcefully disagree with you, I'm arrogant. If you forcefully disagree with me you're...what? Don't believe I ever referred to you as arrogant. And I never said you couldn't disagree with me, forcefully or otherwise. I just put forth my beliefs so that others can see information from another perspective. I may not change your opinion, but do not think it is right to just keep silent and not point out where I believe you are incorrect.>From your past postings, I assume you're a fundamentalist Christian, so you feel about other religions the way that I feel about all religions. Does that make you a hypocrite as well?First, I may or may not fit into "fundamentalist christian" Most individuals that fit into my definition of fundementalist christian would actually probably consider me quite liberal. You are correct, I am a Christian; a New Testament Christian to be exact. Also, I may disagree with the teachings of other religions, and even some of my Christian counterparts. However, I do not believe that it is correct or appropriate to attack other religious beliefs, other than point out to the individual what I believe, why I believe it, and support it with scripture. After that it is up to them to either accept it or reject it.
-
okay...good call
-
find something that vibrates..
