Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Yes! The Religion of Truth seekers! What a concept.
Are we looking at all of this BACKWARD?
It has been said that we ARE a 'soul' and that we HAVE a 'body'.
So, in the continuum between the fellow we saw upscreen,
con-joined twins 
,
Eng and Chang 
;
and identical twins 
;
how many SOULS are involved?
Duh!
Which of the OTHER religions are 'true'??
It seems that 'atheism' is GOD's little trick to PROVE that CHRISTIANITY is right!
Logic isn't your first language; is it?
You left out the SEE part.
Do please contain your comments to the TEXT and NOT what you WANT the text to say.
This should be simple enough. For you.
Look at the EVIDENCE.
That's where it starts...
Actually, not completely -- the process of DNA joins is a new set of chemical reactions. The DNA is in a living orgnism (the ovum or the sperm), so it is FROM life, it does not CREATE life, but furthers it
A creation of life is if you take an inanimate object and give it life a la Frankenstein.
Nope. An ignoramus is an ignorant person, from the Latin verb ignorare. A person knowledgeable of pagan rituals or Christian rituals or the rituals of the state is not an "ignoramus"
An ignorant person is lacking knowledge or awareness in general
Yes and you are free to disbelieve that if you like. You have the free choice to believe or not, just as I do. Similarly, you have the civil right to believe or not, just as I do.
"..Being nice wasn’t an option; it was the only way for the species to survive...But there’s a second unspoken lesson here—that the existence of altruism, compassion, generosity, kinship, and compassion can be explained very well by natural selection.
So is it morally incumbent upon the bats to survive?
See 2,543 Attempts such as this to explain or account for morality from an a priori assumption of naturalism commit a fundamental category error. The foregoing, even if it were an accurate account of what has happened in the past, does not constitute or offer any explanation at all of morality because mere descriptive accounts of the past are not prescriptive. Morality entails what ought to be done, not merely what is. As Hume showed, you cannot logically derive an ought from an is.
Cordially,
And they pretend that they don’t get why you don’t play.
They’re total trolls.
The can accuse all they want, in my book. I know the truth and I know that I’ve stated on the forum where I stand on each of those issues. Anyone who wishes can go back and find the answer to the questions they are asking. It’s in my posting history.
Amen, metmom!
Since you cannot even get the fundamentals of the biology behind cloning james, your credibility beyond that crumbles quickly to the nonsense level.
Replies to every accusation of yours has been addressedobfuscated in my earlier comments. One only needs look at them, to know what my actual arguments were.
There, corrected the record for you james, at no extra charge. Really james, you are so confused on this subject you really need some help. Perhaps a gurka guide, bread crumbs and a gps may help you find your way out.
Next best thing to wack-a-mole.
For Atheist the false god is themselves, therefore it is impossible to admit defeat.
Indeed, and the other 'gods' they conjure up are just as fallible.
Guess what - you are clueless. One speaks about where he was born, the other speaks about where he grew up. Not surprising that you are wrong again.
You inserted ‘clan’ where it didn’t belong and passed it off as factual.
Bethlehem is known as the City of David - and Jesus was a descendant of David.
Epic fail lg, Don’t give up your day job.
I can say only one thing: when I was a believer I remember homilies that reminded the faithful that God hates sin and loves the sinner, and that the Christian God, Lord and Savior taught his disciples not to hate, but to love their enemies.
Apparently not all "Christians" (or morel likely trolls with an ax to grind, masquerading as Christians) here on FR practice that. The hate they spill on these pages on anyone who dares question their beliefs, or even who happens to be Catholic, just doesn't come across as anything even remotely Christian, so it really doesn't matter what sect or cult they belong to; all one can see in their words is hate. Theirs god must the god of hate and their religion to match. pnsn and metmom, you don't have to say what you believe in. It's obvious.
Theirs=Their
"Thankfully, in this enlightened day and age, we have mental giants such as [ LaGrande, James C. Bennett, kosta50] & Bill Maher to explain how "The Founders went to great lengths to keep GOD out of our politics." Just imagine! This is what they were up against: To cite one superstitious -- not to mention, appallingly ethnocentric -- idiot by the name of John Adams, "I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the world."
This arrogant, Jew-loving neo-con tool of the Israel lobby also wrote that "I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations." The Jewish people preserved and propagated "to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the greatest essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization." /s Amazing. This clown sounds like he could be Sarah Palin's speech writer.
At any rate... you will notice that the left is the Adversary, as they not only devalue and undermine the classical liberal values upon which America was founded, but they also denigrate the West in general. And they obviously hate God and are at war with religion. "
<>
But Bill Maher [et.al] is not a serious man. Well, perhaps seriously bitter. Which is another point. Maher does not have the insight or depth of character to delve into the roots of his own bitterness and anger, which pose insurmountable obstacles to any understanding of the Subject of the subject he pretends to explore in Religulous. Thus, the whole exercise is one of triumphant self-justification and narcissistic exultation. Obviously, if he were truly curious about God, he could have dialogued with serious intellectuals possessing valid gnosis. But if he were to do that, he would look like the unlearned rube that he is. It reminds me of what Bion described as the essence of the psychotic mind...which is organized around the unholy triumvirate of arrogance, curiosity and stupidity.
Let's see what else Adams had to say : )
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion”
Is it painful to learn the truth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.