Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Untouchable, huh?I don't think religions should mess with Science in schools.
No offense -- and I could certainly be wrong here -- but I think you don't even have a clue as to what I said; let alone be privy to who would agree and who wouldn't.I don't think many people would agree with you on that theology.
I'm not going to debate this with an agnostic, Timatter.
Especially one that is content to remain behind a question mark.
Take Split Rock for example. He's been behind a question mark since I've known him, yet he is anything but a question mark.
For all this knowledge -- and I assume he is very knowledgeable -- he is still an agnostic, and will probably die one -- (although I hope not).
In any event, just so you can have something to automatically deny -- (which every good agnostic does, doesn't he?) -- here's a tidbit for you to ridicule:
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
Outer space talks to us, using a language that agnostics and other types of unbelievers are unfamiliar with.
God created these events to be a message to us as to what sin does.
What you see as a supernova, we see as a star -- actually a home to angels -- (but skip that, it's over your head) -- we see an angel's home demolished; probably because he "left his first estate" and came to earth and cohabited with women.
Yes, the former tenant of SN1987 is now "reserved in chains of darkness", and his home destroyed because of a terrible choice he made to follow Lucifer in a rebellion that will never succeed.
Having said all this -- have a nice day.
Untouchable, huh?
Is it okay for Science [sic] to mess with religions?
And why did you capitalize 'science', but not 'religions'?
So much for 'church militant', eh?
I guess the militant bow to science too, don't they?
The question is the bit you enboldened.What's the question? I'll venture.
You can tell by holding the egg up to a light. It's called candling. (they used to use a candle). After 3-6 days you can see the chick developing inside the shell.So how can you tell if a egg has been fertilized and if that egg will produce a chicken or not?
The question is the bit you enboldened.
I'm not going to type out the whole thing again (sorry for that) so just read the thread if you want to answer, or ignore it the way Belk is.
First, you tell me what it is I supposedly don't believe in?The question is the bit you enboldened.
I'm not going to type out the whole thing again (sorry for that) so just read the thread if you want to answer, or ignore it the way Belk is.
I know your comprehension skills aren't that poor as you came to answer the point I was making. You could try reading more than the last page.First, you tell me what it is I supposedly don't believe in?
I'm beginning to sympathise with AV's laments about "everything but what's in his profile"...I'll pick on you because your the first post on my last page. I have every idea what being an atheist means, not what you claim it is.
It's funny how nearly everyone claiming to be an atheist doesn't seem to have the faintest clue about what atheism means.
Wait, why did you? I didn't think it was supposed to be capitalised.Don't get hysterical AV1611VET. Where did I say it was alright for Science to mess with religions?
I don't spoonfeed. Look up the proper use of capitals to see why I capitalised Science and not religions.
No.Just out of curiosity, Orogeny, according to your belief, is a baby that has gone through infant baptism no longer an atheist?
Which one?
I think I'll go ahead and take your point with a grain of sand. You don't know which Jesus I was talking about; and in your opinion, the Catholic church baptizes atheists. I'd say that's indicative of being confused.
Specificity is not a quality of yours.You don't know which Jesus I was talking about;
They do. Do infants have the ability to believe in the existence of a deity? Nope. Thus, they do not believe a deity exists. Ergo, they are atheists.and in your opinion, the Catholic church baptizes atheists.
You say a lot of stuff. It's almost never right. Glad to see you're staying in your wheelhouse.I'd say that's indicative of being confused.
It's not, huh?Specificity is not a quality of yours.
I'm going to call your bluff on this one, Orogeny.They do.
Since your contemporaries won't (or haven't yet), I will.Wikipedia said:Paedobaptists believe that baptism has replaced Old Testament circumcision and is the religious ceremony of initiation into the Christian community.
When the Catholic church recognizes an infant as a Christian, and someone claims that same infant is an atheist, then something is wrong somewhere.At what point does that phrase 'initiation into the christian community' translate directly to 'instantly provides the infant with the cognitive ability to entertain belief and opinion'?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?