Reply With Quote
Like they were going to do anything. You know they were praying not to get shot at the time.
religious wars :wankfest:
[QUOTE]No. He was the one extending the converstion.
He knew who they were and when they asked him if he wanted to hear what they had to say he said yes.
He even ridiculed them when they said they weren't going to talk about this all night long, which implies that he actually wanted to extend the argument.
They simply stayed in a conversation that for the most part he wanted to keep going.
IMO they politely listened to what had to say.
Like they were going to do anything. You know they were praying not to get shot at the time.
religious wars :wankfest:
Did they get stallowned or just owned, because if they didn't get stallowned then there is no point, because Moromons get regularly owned all the time.
I'm not going to debate the intricacies of Mormonism with you, as there are other things to do on a Saturday that are much more enjoyable (Go Cubbies!).
Again, my point is that in this instance, he lists a reason why he does not accept the testament of Joseph Smith. He never said that he would not read it. He was just refusing the offer of a pamphlet from these two. Considering how well he quotes the Bible, there is a chance he's already read the book of Mormon.
There is a distinct difference between the two. The Bible is not an attempt to explain how a star explodes into a supernova. It contains no references to atoms or the formula for chemical reactions. It is not a book of science, and any Christian who takes it literally enough to believe it is probably still thinks that this planet contains only fire, air, water, and Earth.You're right, the Big Bang can't be proven, and NO scientist will say it can. Same thing with the theory of evolution. Science doesn't make the claim that they ARE true, but that there's a great possibilty that they are, based on what is known so far. Every theory can be potentially be disproved.
Religion makes a claim that what it says is true. That nothing else is true. That it can't be denied.
Science will never be able to prove that Jesus was the messiah. Indeed, they have had not been able to provide datum for his very existence until recently. Since much of the Bible is a faith-based system, it cannot leave any breathing room. Otherwise, it will be gradually taken apart by erosive forces and corruption over the centuries until you're left with 100,000 messiahs and 1400 different deities, or just a bunch of old people squabbling over who did what. Likely both. I know many close-minded atheists and even agnostics. I know many self-proclaimed Christians who view science as a negative thing. I disagree with both.The approach to science and religion are different in that the one (science) leaves room for further contemplation and the other (religion) doesn't. One is openminded and the other isn't.
I would say that arguing one over the other is impossible. Which is why stating a faith (or even a philosophy) is false because there is no proof is equally pointless. Would you ever attempt to "prove" the validity of Democracy, Socialism, or a Monarchy? You can always cite the various failures of each, but you can never prove that one government is better than another.Comparing the two is stupid.
I believe civilized discourse over various faiths is much like disagreeing about philosophy. You can learn something. These mormons chose not to learn anything and argue when they had no answers. The other guy chose not to try to deign any wisdom from a couple of individuals who were utterly clueless.But to argue over religion is.
Faith wasn't the reason for the crusades (if that's what you're referencing). It was the Catholic church gaining so much power that it felt the need to spread and conquer. It had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with power-hungry individuals taking advantage of an uneducated populace.One raises more questions and the other has fueled wars.
It should be at the time important to note the difference between religion, something Jesus never supported, and faith. Religion is not what Christianity is about. Jesus said, "For who believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
It says nothing about "those who go to church and recite the same incantations every week and blindly follow those around them". Religion IS what is killing so many in the Middle-east. Two peoples who care more about an area of land than being kind to each other. The Bible DOES say to fellowship with one another. I do not find that objectionable in the least, since we as humans need each other for strength and comfort.
However, I have to wonder. As stupid as killing each other over a scrap of land is, do you really think they wouldn't have found some other reason to be pissed at each other even without the "Holy land"?
And furthermore, for the record, meet Joseph Stalin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
General Secretary of Russia. Responsible for the deaths of 9 million of his own people. He wasn't an atheist in the true sense of the word, however this is only due to the fact that he attempted to set up a complete system of religion with himself as the pinnacle.
Hitler was also mostly anti-religion, as demonstrated in these quotes:
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
Sorry for the length of this post. I just believe in thoroughly explaining my position.
For the most part. They did their own, when the moron on the left stated that he knew nothing and that he "knows" Joseph Smith was a prophet.No. He was the one extending the converstion.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with continuing the conversation. He is still not obligated to take what they are offering, especially if they cannot back it up.
Whether faith plays a small part in your reason or a big part it's still fuel for unneeded disagreement.
that's all i'm trying to say.
What's wrong with disagreement? Two adults should be able to disagree cordially. I daresay it's one of the reasons that forums like this exist, so people of different places can come together and express opinions about the sport. Thousands of wars have been fought over land, influence, culture, or women. If two peoples want to go to war, they will find a reason to facilitate the process.
nothing is wrong with disagreement...only unneeded disagreement. Disagreement, wherein two people are fighting over something that hasn't any known connection to reality and truth
that is just stupid
Last edited by Ronaldo McDonald; 09-15-2007 at 06:05 PM.
from everything i've seen, yeah. they don't allow whites to be part of their religion and belive that blacks are "blessed" and whites are the descendants of Edom. I dont know if they're militant about it like the Nation Of Islam, but they're definitely black supremacists.
Which completely negates any "knowlege" they think they have of the Bible.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions