Replies

Kosta is on an unending quest to spit in the eye of the Creator

For refusing to acknowledge some mortal's version of what God is?

Why you folks continue to indulge this self-righteous naybob's ego is hard to figure

What could be more self-righteous and egotistic then to pretend to be a (self-appointed) spokesperson for God himself?

The poster enjoys insulting folks of faith and exploits with glee mischaraterization of any negative response to his insults

how do you know what I enjoy?

Let them alone and move on to those asking genuine questions.

And who decides what is a "genuine" question? The self-appointed, self-rigthoeus, God's press secretary?

God is not angered by questioning, but we have it on good authority that He will not always contend witht he wicked

Ah, there is always that warning to stifle open inquiry into any man-made "official truth."

Since the last post in which you replied to MHGinTN was inspired by her response to a post I made, but not directed at anything I said, I will not take offense at these comments:

"What could be more self-righteous and egotistic then to pretend to be a (self-appointed) spokesperson for God himself?"

"And who decides what is a "genuine" question? The self-appointed, self-rigthoeus, God's press secretary?"

I would, however, like to call attention to the fact that you have yet to respond or comment regarding the two other observations I made.

First, in reference to your question about trusting in faith healing to cast out demons or using antibiotics to kill bacteria in pneumonia, I pointed out that you made the assumption that these two options were mutually exclusive.

I see absolutely no contradiction in praying for healing while at the same time using the intellect given to us by God to apply our learning to the situation. If the illness was cured, why would you care which method effected the cure?

Second, this last morning, I responded to your post which said:

"If we left everything to religion, we would still be living in the 1st century chasing "demons" out of lepers."

My response was - "With that statement you have demonstrated a far more narrow view of what religious people do and think than we (religious people) ever supposed of the scientific community.

People who truly live their faith are on a never ending quest to uncover the wonderful way God has formed the universe."

I realize that these two comments were not specific questions, but rather observations. I will not hold you to qui tacet consentire videtur but I would ask you to consider the possibility that your line of argument is logically flawed by the most elementary of fallacies, the converse fallacy of accident, commonly known as the "some=all" fallacy.

Because some creationists are also Biblical literalists does not mean that all are.

Because some healers use faith and casting out of demons exclusively does not mean that all do.

Because religion has been used in some instances to suppress knowledge, does not mean that suppression is religion's central tenent, or even a common one.

What I truly find astounding is that someone such as yourself, who (I infer through your comments) believes in demonstrable causality and the verifiability of conclusions could ascribe to an evolutionary doctrine which is at best quite thin on evidence, and at worst, an obvious attempt to justify human hubris on a grand scale.