To: tfecw
Succinctly put. I have no problem with religions that don't own waterslides, require their members to surgically remove genitalia or crash airplanes into things. But using science to validate Religious Mythology is just SILLY!
11 posted on
03/09/2005 2:05:00 PM PST by
Mongeaux
To: Mongeaux
agreed. I always wondered when people tried to mix faith with fact. I thought the whole point in faith was...uhh you had to have faith.
13 posted on
03/09/2005 2:06:58 PM PST by
tfecw
(Vote Democrat, It's easier then working)
To: Mongeaux
"I have no problem with religions that don't own waterslides, require their members to surgically remove genitalia or crash airplanes into things. But using science to validate Religious Mythology is just SILLY!"So your position is it doesn't matter how ridiculous or murderous a religion is in your book it's ok with you.
The only time you take offense with religion is when they claim that science actually supports their scriptures.
Do I have that right?
24 posted on
03/09/2005 2:16:33 PM PST by
DannyTN
To: Mongeaux
But using science to validate Religious Mythology is just SILLY!
======
Psssssst.... Islamofascists evolved from fruit flies !!! ;-))
146 posted on
03/09/2005 4:28:38 PM PST by
GeekDejure
( LOL = Liberals Obey Lucifer !!!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson