Reduced to sarcasm, is that the limit of your debating skills? No priests in true Christianity, didn't you read Jesus' words at Matthew 23:8-12:-
Actually, you are wrong about that. What you are doing is tarring everyone with the same brush. That's borderline racism. What "some" would call a "redneck" too. However, I am sure you are neither. I think you just don't know anything about the organization that grandad belongs to or me for that matter. You could find out though. Could it hurt to find out? Col
lmao you think i'm going to defend a priests wish to call himself a priest? They are scum and liars, You can agree with that statments if you want. I guess that also makes a christian who goes to church a follower of false prohpets, Yes?
No it isn't racism and your sloppy use of the word is both pathetic and offensive. What do you think someone who suffered racism would make of that comparison? They tend to be deeply religious. Yes it could hurt to find out, Certainly if im "finding out" from someone who would like nothing more than to take a fresh wallet in to the collective. That's probably how they entrapped you. You got to mid-life, You probably had a divorce or lost a parent and they told you it "couldn't hurt" to come along one evening and see what the "organisation" is about. They prey on the weak.
I don't want to offend you or anyone else. I just hope you can step back and look at how slanderous your statement was? LOL. Nice analysis you have there. Although you are completely and utterly wrong You have no idea at all really. Col
You have a habit of using words which you are apparently oblivious to the meaning of. It is of little significance to me what someone names their magical invisible friend, They still believe in a magical invisible friend. And that is why there is no difference between them to me.
Which words would that be? Slanderous? Are you saying you were not slandering me in your prior posts? Col
yes slanderous. Look it up and then explain what was slanderous about saying all religious people are as bad as one another.
But in reality, while you pretend to be atheist and go after someone who has bent over backwards to be nice to you, despite your slanderous remarks, you defend islam with vigor. Even going so far as to openly admit to others on a public forum that you support it's terrorist gangs. The epitome of hypocrisy.
I think religion and the way it folds in on itself and contradicts itself (hence the need for hundreds of sects and branches) is a much better definition of hipocrisy. Don't you?
Is hipocrisy [sic] a new branch of hypocrisy? Jokes a side. I agree. Religion has a lot to answer for. However, there is no hypocrisy in true christianity. (I can sense st0x is about to post....LOL) Col
Yeah, the hypocrisy of me speaking on hypocrisy while misspelling it is a bit ridiculous. Or is that.... ironic?
hehehe...good to see you can see the funny side of that... Oh how tongue twisted we can get sometimes...LOL Col
Ah, the good old, ignorant, Hitler was a Christian argument. That's true until Hitler realized that Christianity was incompatible with his goals and he spoke strongly against it. Even the KKK doesn't pretend that Hitler and Christianity go together. The only reason that any religion survived in Russia was because Stalin was a member of the orthodox church. Lenin argued with Stalin about it but ultimately decided to let Stalin keep his toy as long as it was regulated by the state. But even that didn't stop the murder of orthodox Christians. Both Hitler and Lenin were in agreement that religion is incompatible with Socialism and Communism. Contrast that to the US where the freedom of religion comes even before freedom of speech. In many countries around the world even today, people are murdered on a regular basis simply for practicing their religion without "approval" by the state. One of the biggest jokes of the 20th century was the LDS church claiming to have accomplished something by getting their church into China. Anyone can get their church into China and have been able to for a very long time. All you have to do is subject your church to the government rule. All you have to do is look to the story of Daniel to see what God thinks about putting man's law above Him. That is why ultimately Hitler renounced and trash talked Christianity. Who knows how many people on a daily basis are murdered in countries like China simply for refusing to cater their religion to the will of the government. In Saudi Arabia you can't even own a Bible. It is astounding the amount of ignorance that makes people think Religion is the cause of the world's problems. Even from the beginning the early Christians were not murdered by religious people. The were murdered by the government for political purposes. There is nothing more dangerous to a government than a powerful religion that tells its members that the government is subject to a higher authority.
Why not? You defend islam all the time and even terrorist groups: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3464145&postcount=24 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3467367&postcount=37 You are blowing your cover as a supposed atheist who hates all religion. The more you continue to defend terrorism and islam, in particular, while launching a personal crusade against Christians and Jews, the more people realize that you are just another one here pretending to be something you are not. Like gworld does, like KingOfKings did (before being caught) and so many others before you.
Yes. Depends on what you are calling a fossil and how you are determining what that fossil is to be. Col
Depends? That's pretty non-committal. Nevertheless that means both yes and no. I don't see how you can believe a 6000 year old "fossil" (or anything for that matter) would be in a sediment layer that's been there for "millions" of years. Unless you believe it was teleported there... I believe the evidence clearly points to both the layers and the fossils in the layers both being laid down at the same time in the world wide flood.