A very surprising now 10 pages topic, with also very surprising words.
Schematically one can say that scientific/evolution theories can be discussed, as might in the future whatever theory universally accepted at the time speaking (Euclide’s axiom was said to be true until Riemann and Lobatchevski stated opposite or, more exactly speaking, complementary ones).
On the other hand, there’s of course no evidence whatsoever of the creation thory: there’s only faith and belief (the last word itself saying it is not a scientific matter), and i respect both of them, and i illustrated in this same topic Blaise Pascal’s words (“bend on your knees, and you shall believe”: only a matter of faith).
But, strange enough, we have read about “religions with no God”, “paganistic hinduists”, or “the Pope being an employee of the Catholic Church” (of course He is not, read Matthew, 16:18-19), not even speaking of “slaves”, “homosexuals”, or “females”.
Should a faith be so uncertain of itself that it “allows” such disrespect to other people because they are not Christian, or even to Catholics because one is Protestant?
Agh. I can't say much without having to remove it later. I think we may just be getting more lost. Roll Eyes
You are the only one lost.
It is hard to express what I want to say without people reading it wrong.
Then I assume you don’t really understand what it is you believe.
That wasn't my point.
What was you point, in 10 pages you have presented nothing but conjuncture?
Many certainly would not see a need for love then.
So, we humans are incapable of love without a god?
Hence the quotes (these are quotes --> "").
No idea what that means?
Laser, I mean this in the nicest possible way, go and do some research. Your entire argument is based on what you have read on AIG and what ever you hear from your peers.
It doesn’t matter if Christianity is declining, in fact it is predicted in Revelation that it will happen so it’s no surprise. It will however, eventually be the only one that survives. Even Democracy will perish since it actually is not a Godly principle.
A small body of text has been removed from this post. It was a response to another post that has been deemed to be offensive and has subsequently been removed. Consequently, this body of text has been rendered redundant and has been removed for clarity. Apologies to dch48.
It doesn't matter if Christianity is declining, in fact it is predicted in Revelation that it will happen so it's no surprise. It will however, eventually be the only one that survives. Even Democracy will perish since it actually is not a Godly principle.
Ah, so Democracy is ‘evil’ silly me, I always thought it was an indication of free will.
using the Bible as a justification,
Disprove it hasn’t been used?
it simply means that for some unknown reason, God has allowed them to be subjugated and they should accept it as part of his will.
“For some unknown reason”? Are you serious?
It is actually an allegory for everyone to be content to be under God's will and not to rebel against him.
It's actually a doctrine, to which you capitulate or not.
Reference to deleted material removed by mods
And that makes it right?
It was in most cases, a punishment or you could even say a probationary period.
Remember, speaking of slavery, that man who said “I have a dream”.
I know, he was on the religious side, but if religion always should look like it, it should tremendously rise the religious feelings of non-religious people.
My dream has maybe been to, someday, be able to have a gentlemen discussion about sensible topics, like religion or politics, in whatever forum: for sure, it won’t occur any more in Comodo’s forum.
Somehow repeating myself, i don’t understand that some words (on both sides) have been threatened to be moderated, but have actually not been moderated.
Various comments on some religion (or lack of religion) and on some social issues represent as many insults to moderate people in each of these categories (including of course Muslims, Agnostics…), and yes, if some stopped barking, others maybe could have a real debate.
I’m going to lock this topic temporarily, while I have a PM or two with some of the contributors to the topic.
Somehow repeating myself, i don't understand that some words (on both sides) have been threatened to be moderated, but have actually not been moderated.
The mods don’t like censoring topics unless there is a clear breach of the T&C. This topic has been walking a fine line recently and it has been discussed frequently between the mods as to whether to allow it to continue. While it was about whether people did or didn’t wonder about the origins, the topic was OK and there was some interesting information and viewpoints presented, but lately it has turned into a childish “I’m right and you’re wrong” argument.
Ewen
P.S. I’m not backing Sheldon Cooper any more - I’m thinking that Ganbda’s uber-hovercraft is the way.
Sorry guys, this was getting too heated and was getting way too close to breaching the forums T&C.
To those who participated in this topic in the right spirit - thanks - it’s good to see the intelligent debate that flowed from both perspectives at times in this topic.
May the Great Pumpkin, perched aloft his uber-hovercraft, orbiting his space laboratory, look down kindly upon you all.
