Religion based intolerance...

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Then how are you sure you even understand what God wants?

I know because it spells it out in the Bible.

  Quote

All humans are prone to error. How do you know that every single person that wrote the Bible did so without error? It's been translated from its original language as well. How do you know that original meanings haven't been changed when error-making-humans translated it?

1. The time span between the date of composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest
surviving manuscripts is relatively short.
2. The number of manuscripts is greater than any other ancient work.
3. The Greek New Testament was translated into other languages at an early date. Very uncommon.
4. The writings of the Church Fathers could be used to reconstruct the New Testament text in its entirety even without the manuscripts.
5. There were different groups who watched carefully the transmission of the New Testament text.
6. Variant readings do exist but do not affect the reliability of the text or the Christian doctrine. In the entire New Testament, there are only about 50 variant readings.

  Quote

I didn't say God did. Puritans definitely used the Bible as a tool to control the masses. Many other groups of people did as well.

That doesn’t discredit the Bible. The bad things that people do in the name of God doesn’t make what they do “of God.”

  Quote

That's my main problem with it. There's no differentiation between lying to my parents when I was four about eating cookies and lying about something actually important. So, I have sinned just as badly as someone who has stolen a million dollars from a charity because I stole a candy bar from a store when I was 8. Common sense will tell you which one is worse, but they are equal sins. That's just silly. Plus, I never claimed I want to be righteous. I want to be a good person who helps more than I hurt. I wish more Christians would realize that if I'm not doing harm to anyone else, then all of their big signs will never change me.

You’re correct. Without accepting the saving grace of God through faith in his son Jesus, there is no salvation and you are lost. Your sin, however small it may seem to you, will be judged whether you like it or not.

  Quote

One thing we agree upon! Lack of religion doesn't necessarily make you a worse person either.

I agree. I’m no better than a non-religious person. I’m not perfect, just forgiven.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

  Quote

part of the homosexual movement's agenda

The agenda, from the e-mails that I pirate, is mostly about the encouragement of the use of hair gel amongst heterosexual men at this point.

The kid raising stuff comes after the proper use of beauty products.

So you're telling me that they don't want what I've stated before. They don't really have a political agenda and I'm just pulling all this out of "mi arss."

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Not at all, but it was not designed to be used backwards (i.e. missionary position.) You can use it in that unnatural manner, no problem - it even happens to work. But you are 'defying nature' by doing so, just as you defy nature in a hundred other ways (delaying having children through abstinence or birth control, using drugs to keep you healthier, going to hospitals to cure your sicknesses.) Again, just because all those things are unnatural is not a reason not to do them.

Even if you inserted it, turned upside down, and spun in a complete circle it doesn’t change the fact that one organ was designed for the other and that two of the same was not. I also didn’t say that was the only reason. There are others.

  Quote

My own experiences watching children of all sorts grow up. A great many heterosexual couples have created abhorrent environments for children; the few homosexual parents I've known have created good environments for their children. There are way too few to get a big enough sample base to make a hard call though, since we currently forbid gay marriage in 99.99% of the country.

Again, my own experiences and those of my friends. A skydiver friend of mine has told me that he never chose to be gay; his sex drive came about the same way mine did (i.e. it just happened) but he was attracted to men instead. I generally trust my experiences and the experiences of my friends more than I trust third hand stories.

Your personal experience beats out statistical studies?

  Quote

You were claiming that marriage has always been that way and therefore it's OK. Slavery had always been that way, too. That means that "it's always been that way" is not a valid reason to keep doing it if it's wrong.

Marriage has been demonstrated over thousands of years to be the most healthy and successful organizational model for society. Slavery, although productive for the owners, has always been unhealthy and abusive. Just because they’ve both been around for a very long time, I still say you’re comparing apples to oranges. There is no correlation.

[Lindsey 0]

  Quote

Even if you inserted it, turned upside down, and spun in a complete circle it doesn’t change the fact that one organ was designed for the other and that two of the same was not. I also didn’t say that was the only reason. There are others.

Well...one organ wasn't necessarily designed for the other....I think that as we evolved they developed as a tool for procreation. But everything people do doesn't have to be aimed at assuring the survival of the species. I just can't see how a couple's choice of how they use their "parts" is going to impact how effective they are at parenting. It'd be interesting to scrutinize the statistical studies that you're referring to....

Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

perhaps you should look more into the literary analysis of your mythos, where simularilties in style and prose rrather convinvingly show that there existed a 'source' document for all your 'eye witness accounts'. But of course believers will claim the simularities in writing sytle and substance are coincidences rather than collective plagarism, and that the account were written 'shortly' (thus far shown in excess of 50-100+ years depending on the book) after the events supposedly ascribed took place.

The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are, in fact, very similar and tell the same eye-witness accounts (minus Luke who was not an eye-witness) of the life, teachings, crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They validate each other with their similarity and great detail. As for the writing style and substance, however, it differs with each text.

Matthew – Matthew was written for and tailored to the Jewish believers. The Jewish background is evident in many ways, including (1) its reliance on OT revelation, promises and prophecy to prove that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah; (2) its tracing of Jesus’ lineage, starting from Abraham; (3) its repeated declaration that Jesus is the “Son of David”; (4) its use of preferred Jewish terminology such as “kingdom of heaven” because of the Jews’ reverential reluctance to say the name of God directly; and (5) its reference to Jewish customs without any explanation.

Mark – Mark derived the content of his Gospel fro his association with Peter, wrote it in Rome, and designed it for Roman believers. It was written as a pastoral response to that time of Christian persecution and was meant to give foundation and strength.

Luke – Luke was not an eye-witness like the others and was also not a Jew. He was a very meticulous doctor and a loyal coworker with Paul. He was well educated, a skilled writer, a careful historian, and an inspired theologian. He was inspired to write a more detailed account of the life of Jesus to a man named Theophilus (who’s name means “one who loves God”). When he wrote the Gospel, the Gentile church apparently had no complete or widely circulated Gospel about Jesus. Luke’s account was tailored in style for the Gentile believers.

John – John’s Gospel reveals more fully the mystery of Jesus’ personhood which the others do not elaborate as much on. His message was tailored to the unbeliever in order to convince them to believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and be “saved.”

[3ringheathen 0]

  Quote

We’re not meant to know and understand everything.

God didn’t want us not to think or to have “blind faith.”

The above quotes are contradictory.
A simple acknowledgement that we can't know everything would be more appropriate, but it's also a radically different idea. Saying "we're not meant to know and understand everything" goes hand in hand with blindly accepting things as true without thinking about and investigating them.

Such thinking has played a vital role in perpetuating all sorts of unsavory things in society. Things that are completely incompatible with an all knowing, loving and compassionate creator.
The irrational bias against homosexuality is just the latest social injustice to be questioned. It's long overdue for a supposedly modern civilization.

  Quote

Your works, however good they may be, do not make you righteous.

Following this logic:
Suppose that Vallerina is an extraordinarily good, kind person. She sins far less than you do. She sacrifices more to help others than you do. In her heart she regrets every mistake she's ever made, and strives to avoid repeating them. She does all this because she simply believes it is the right thing to do. She doesn't believe in god, heaven, hell, and so forth.

In your God's eyes, she is not righteous. You will be rewarded in the afterlife, and she will not. Simply because you have faith, never mind that, for the sake of argument at the very least, she led a better life than you.

Frankly, I find this concept appalling.
Such a hypothetical deity would not be worthy of worship, but rather contempt.

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

  Quote

Evidence: Paraphrased from book by Josh McDowell

Yikes.
Citing Josh McDowell is a bit like citing Pinochio, except his deceptions aren't as easily identified.
For those that aren't familiar with this author, simply check out reviews of his books on Amazon.com.
If you're still curious, go to the library, but whatever you do, don't subsidize this crackpot by purchasing one of his books!

I recommend reading a sampling of the positive and negative reviews. The average lucidity of each ought to give you an idea of how hopeless it is to reason with his followers.

A sample:
This book is a complete and utter waste of time if you are looking for objective scholarship, honest historical research from a learned scholar. This author is nothing more than a promoter who operates under the guise of scholarship. His arguments - evidence is specious and he commits virtually every logical fallacy one can commit.

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

(thus far shown in excess of 50-100+ years depending on the book) after the events supposedly ascribed took place.

Quoted from study done by Don Stewart:

The New Testament was written a short time after the events.

The city of Jerusalem and Temple were still standing when the New Testament was written.
1. The first three gospels, and possibly the fourth, were apparently written whild the city of Jerusalem was still standing. Each of the first three Gospels contains predictions by Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), but none records the fulfillment. We know that Titus the Roman destroyed the city and Temple in A.D. 70. Hence, the composition of the first three Gospels must have occurred sometime before this event; otherwise their destruction would have been recorded.

The Book of Acts provides a clue to the date of the gospels.
2. The Book of Acts provides us with a clue as to when the gospels were written. Acts records the highlights in the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul. The book concludes with Paul at Rome awaiting trial before Caesar. The inference is that Acts was written while Paul was still alive, seeing his death is not recorded. Since there is good evidence that Paul died in the Neronian persecution about A.D. 67, the Book of Acts can be dated approximately A.D. 62.

Acts is the second part of Luke’s writings.
3. If Acts was written about A.D. 62, then this helps us date the gospels, since the Book of Acts is the second half of a treatise written by Luke to a man named Theophilus. Because we know that the gospel of Luke was written before the Book of Acts, we can then date the Gospel of Luke sometime around A.D. 60 or before.

“The brother who was well-known” may have been Luke.
4. There may be further evidence for an early date for Luke’s gospel. Paul wrote of a brother who was well-known among the churches for the gospel.

“And we have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the gospel has spread through all the churches.” 2 Corinthians 8:18

There is ancient testimony that this refers to Luke and his written gospel. If this is speaking of Luke and the gospel he composed, then we have it well-known in the mid-fifties of the first century.

Mark was probably used as a source for Luke.
5. There may be a reference in the writings of Luke that he used Mark as a written source. John Mark is called a “minister” by Luke in Acts 13:5 (the Greek word huparetas). In 1:2, Luke says he derived the information for his gospel from those who were “eyewitnesses” and “ministers” of the word. The term translated “minister” is the same Greek word huparetas. It is possible that this could be a reference to Mark as one of his written sources.

Mark was probably written before Luke.
6. Furthermore, modern scholarship has generally assumed that the Gospel of Mark was written before Luke. If this is the case, then this book was composed somewhere in the fifties of the first century A.D. Since Jesus’ death and resurrection occurred approximately in the year A.D. 33, these two gospels were written during the time when eyewitnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, were still alive. These eyewitnesses could either verify or falsify the information contained in the gospels.

Matthew was the first Gospel written.
7. We now go a step further by considering Matthew’s gospel. According to the unanimous testimony of the early church, Matthew was the first gospel written. The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew’s gospel in A.D. 41. If this is true, then we have a third independent source about the life of Christ that was written during the eyewitness period.

John was an eye-witness to the events.
8. The Gospel of John is usually assumed to have been the last of the four gospels composed. John testified that he was an eyewitness to the events that he recorded.

“Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” John 20:30-31

He also wrote:

“This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true.” John 21:24

There is internal evidence for an early date for John’s gospel.
9. There is internal evidence that John himself wrote before A.D. 70.

“Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes.” John 5:2

John describes the sheep gate as still standing at the time he wrote. The sheep gate was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, along with the rest of the city of Jerusalem. This could very well be an indication that John wrote his gospel while the city of Jerusalem was still standing.

There is an early date for the entire New Testament.
10. When all the historical and textual evidence is amassed, it becomes clear that the New Testament was composed at a very early date either by eyewitnesses or those who recorded eyewitness testimony.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Evidence: Paraphrased from book by Josh McDowell

Yikes.
Citing Josh McDowell is a bit like citing Pinochio, except his deceptions aren't as easily identified.
For those that aren't familiar with this author, simply check out reviews of his books on Amazon.com.
If you're still curious, go to the library, but whatever you do, don't subsidize this crackpot by purchasing one of his books!

I recommend reading a sampling of the positive and negative reviews. The average lucidity of each ought to give you an idea of how hopeless it is to reason with his followers.

A sample:
This book is a complete and utter waste of time if you are looking for objective scholarship, honest historical research from a learned scholar. This author is nothing more than a promoter who operates under the guise of scholarship. His arguments - evidence is specious and he commits virtually every logical fallacy one can commit.

-Josh

Nice tactic to criticize without pointing to any real specifics to base your position or to offer alternatives. You sound like a Democrat.

[3ringheathen 0]

You sound like a Democrat.

[labrys 0]

Long thread, ADD

Don't make me stop the car....

Doesn't the bible also tell me that if I work on Sunday my neighbors should feel free to stone me to death?

And that eating shellfish is an abomination?

My lifestyle sucks. I want the one where I don't have to pay taxes



And that I can sell my daughter into slavery as long as I keep it out of the country?

Owned by Remi #?

[billvon 3,070]

>Even if you inserted it, turned upside down, and spun in a complete
> circle it doesn’t change the fact that one organ was designed for the
> other and that two of the same was not.

I agree; you are simply misusing that organ. Again, it would be silly for someone else to tell you that you have to use it as nature intended. It is silly for you to tell someone else how to use _their_ organs as well.

>Your personal experience beats out statistical studies?

You have a statistical study that shows that married gay couples do not raise children as well as married heterosexual couples? If so I'd be interested in seeing it. If not, then yes, my experience is a better guide.

>Marriage has been demonstrated over thousands of years to be the
> most healthy and successful organizational model for society.

>Slavery, although productive for the owners, has always been
> unhealthy and abusive.

Not at all! The bible describes the origin of slavery (the story of Ham) describes how to treat slaves well, and describes their place in society. Just do a search on the number of times "servant" appears in the bible, and note how servants are compared to free men. Slavery was clearly integral to society in time of Jesus.

And here in the US there were plenty of people describing how enslaving someone and converting them to christianity was a net benefit to the slave. After all, isn't a chance at heaven better than eternal damnation?

Matthew 10:24 - The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Matthew 21:45 - Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

Luke 17:7 - But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

John 13:16 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Corinthians 7:20 - Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

Ephesians 6:5 -Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Yet after all that we decided to can the slavery thing anyway; we even consider it evil and wrong nowadays. Times change, and morals change with them.

>Just because they’ve both been around for a very long time, I still
>say you’re comparing apples to oranges. There is no correlation.

I agree they are not the same. My point is that saying that something has been around for a long time is no reason to keep it.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

  Quote

The male sexual organ is designed to work with the female sexual organ. You’re going to argue that? I’m not saying you can’t do other things with it. I’m just saying that it wasn’t “designed” to go up another guy’s butt.

Sorry, pajarito, but this sounds REALLLLLY ignorant given the obvious reality that penises do most certainly go up butts -- both guys' and womens'. How exactly are you going to argue about "design" here? Do you have a copy of god's original specs?

To a penis, an orifice is an orifice.

As far as penises not being "designed to go up a guy's butt," is that why Catholic priests prefer boys?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Lindsey 0]

  Quote

Marriage has been demonstrated over thousands of years to be the most healthy and successful organizational model for society. Slavery, although productive for the owners, has always been unhealthy and abusive. Just because they’ve both been around for a very long time, I still say you’re comparing apples to oranges. There is no correlation.

Anne Rice makes a pretty good case for slavery in marriage if you ever read her Sleeping Beauty book.

Peace~
Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Yikes.
Citing Josh McDowell is a bit like citing Pinochio, except his deceptions aren't as easily identified.
For those that aren't familiar with this author, simply check out reviews of his books on Amazon.com.
If you're still curious, go to the library, but whatever you do, don't subsidize this crackpot by purchasing one of his books!

I recommend reading a sampling of the positive and negative reviews. The average lucidity of each ought to give you an idea of how hopeless it is to reason with his followers.

A sample:
This book is a complete and utter waste of time if you are looking for objective scholarship, honest historical research from a learned scholar. This author is nothing more than a promoter who operates under the guise of scholarship. His arguments - evidence is specious and he commits virtually every logical fallacy one can commit.

The quote, listed above, by 3ringheathen was actually a book review by Stephen M. St. Clair of Orlando, FL. 3ringheathen misleads by using the words, “A Sample.” The book it is referencing is The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. There were actually 48 total book reviews listed on http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785243631/102-7097555-3799315?v=glance&vi=customer-reviews. I counted them all and found 31 to be positive reviews and only 17 to be negative. He picked the last negative comment on the first page to present to you.

One such positive review to contradict the one above is:

“This book, like any other apologetic work, has its strengths and weaknesses. While it is true that it treats each topic briefly, it nonetheless is a handy reference tool for basic and thoughtful responses to critics.
Critics and unbelievers will always be unbelievers unless the Spirit of God softens their hearts, so don't expect any apologetic work in of itself to convert an unbeliver. McDowell's Evidence book does provide a wealth of circumstantial evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ and other Christian beliefs. One's assumptions are ultimately important when reading this book and judging if Jesus truly is the Lord of the earth. If one reads this book with the assumption that miracles are impossible, the Bible writers are all liars, and somehow science has "disproven" everything, then one shouldn't even waste their time.
This book succeeds in one incredible way - it emphasizes the historical evidence, the Bible's text. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical question, not a scientific one. Science cannot prove nor disprove miracles, for miracles are additions/exceptions to the natural laws and thus cannot be measured or tested by scientific methods. But the event, whether Jesus rose from the dead, is a historical matter. And this book adequately shows that much of the evidence favors the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course critics and skeptics will come up with all kinds of ways to dismantle this, but the bottom-line is that this book organizes nicely various reasons that the Christian faith has promoted the same message for nearly 2000 years... that Jesus died and rose again, and that this event can be trusted as a historical, objective reality. Is it the type of evidence that modern skeptics would like? Of course not, because modern skeptics demand precise CNN-news style reporting from writers two millennia ago. Even if the resurrection of Jesus were caught on a news camera, a skeptic would find ways to doubt this historical event. Special effects, actors, a false location, whatever, somehow in some fashion something would be proposed to deny this historical event. McDowell succeeds in presenting a book full of helpful circumstantial evidence that when combined overall, provides a most compelling and convincing case for faith in Jesus Christ.”
Paul Lee from San Diego

I’ve never read this particular book but I’m not willing to discount it outright just because I might not like Josh McDowell for some reason or have an antagonistic view of Christianity. I’ve read a couple of his books and found them very comprehensive, informative, and inspiring.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Long thread, ADD

Don't make me stop the car....

Doesn't the bible also tell me that if I work on Sunday my neighbors should feel free to stone me to death?

And that eating shellfish is an abomination?

My lifestyle sucks. I want the one where I don't have to pay taxes



And that I can sell my daughter into slavery as long as I keep it out of the country?

Feel free to review what we have already covered in very much detail concerning your question.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Sorry, pajarito, but this sounds REALLLLLY ignorant given the obvious reality that penises do most certainly go up butts -- both guys' and womens'. How exactly are you going to argue about "design" here? Do you have a copy of god's original specs?

To a penis, an orifice is an orifice.

As far as penises not being "designed to go up a guy's butt," is that why Catholic priests prefer boys

If you read my previous post, you'd see that I said that of course you can do other things with a penis but that it isn't "designed" to go up a guy's or girl's butt. Whether you believe the development to have come about from intelligent design or through a process of evolution. It doesn't matter. A penis and a vagina are both sex organs designed to work together with the primary purpose of reproduction. I don't believe you'll find a physician to disagree with me there. You absolutley will not get a girl pregnant through anal sex unless there's a tear of some sort in the lining that separates the rectum from the vagina and semen gets through. I'm just saying that it's not supposed to work that way. Again, that was but ONE of the arguments listed before. By the way, Peacefuljeffrey, you're pretty good at throwing around insults like inferring that people you disagree with are "ignorant" in an attempt to drive your point home. That's bad form and doesn't add to your credibility.

[PhillyKev 0]

  Quote

If you read my previous post, you'd see that I said that of course you can do other things with a penis but that it isn't "designed" to go up a guy's or girl's butt.

And a dog's penis isn't designed to hump my leg, but my friend's dog used to do it. Was he sinning? Is he condemned to hell? Did the dog make a conscious choice to betray god and nature?

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

  Quote

If you read my previous post, you'd see that I said that of course you can do other things with a penis but that it isn't "designed" to go up a guy's or girl's butt.

And a dog's penis isn't designed to hump my leg, but my friend's dog used to do it. Was he sinning? Is he condemned to hell? Did the dog make a conscious choice to betray god and nature?

Maybe in your religion. Like I said, Of course, you can do other things with it. That doesn't mean that it was designed that way. You're going to actually argue with me that the primary purpose (i.e. what it was designed for) of a male sexual organ isn't supposed to work with a female sexual organ for a specific purpose?

[PhillyKev 0]

No, I'm going to argue that there's no person on this earth that has the right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do with their penis, in private, with adults. And I'm going to argue that protesting against a group of people who happen to do something with it that you don't, just because they happen to be gathered in one place is intolerant and offensive.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

No, I'm going to argue that there's no person on this earth that has the right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do with their penis, in private, with adults. And I'm going to argue that protesting against a group of people who happen to do something with it that you don't, just because they happen to be gathered in one place is intolerant and offensive.

I agree with you 100% unless they have a political purpose for the gathering. If so, then they are trying to change the system to include their lifestyle into political matters (i.e. gay marriage) and are open to peaceful protest. If they want to go stick their penis in some other guys ear, I don't care. It's only when the homosexual movement (speaking collectively) attempts to affect us as a whole that I draw exception.

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok, well 8 pages of posts later ....I'm telling you again, I was there, there was no political agenda. There were no signs, no speakers, didn't even see anyone handing out flyers. That's what pissed me off about it. I agree, if they were having a political rally, and I can understand why people with opposing political views would be there. What I don't understand is why, at this event, that did NOT have a political agenda, people would be there condeming them for being who they are.

[pajarito 0]

Well then....8 pages later....I stand corrected.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

[tip of hat] Good job on the defence of your faith though [/tip of hat]

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[PhillyKev 0]

  Quote

[tip of hat] Good job on the defence of your faith though [/tip of hat]

Definitely. See, all those anti spearkers corner bashers don't know what they're missing. I have a lot of respect for anyone that participates in these discussions and vehemently defends their point of view with logical reasoning.